Black-headed gull
handheld with 100-400 II
Practicing some settings in my 5D. Not all tack sharp but it got me 1 step further
handheld with 100-400 II
Practicing some settings in my 5D. Not all tack sharp but it got me 1 step further
Upvote
0
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
- Thread starter Mt Spokane Photography
- Start date
I would like to ask a question for the ones who have used this lens and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II:
Does it feel as heavy as the 70-200mm?
Everyone who has the 70-200mm complains about its weight. I bought this lens for the IQ and bokeh, but it is so heavy that when I am planning walk all day, I usually leave it at the hotel and lose several photo opportunities. I am thinking about buying the 100-400, but reading its specs, I noticed that it is even heavier than the 70-200 and it may cause the same problem as the 70-200, being left at the hotel and leave me lensless.
Does it feel as heavy as the 70-200mm?
Everyone who has the 70-200mm complains about its weight. I bought this lens for the IQ and bokeh, but it is so heavy that when I am planning walk all day, I usually leave it at the hotel and lose several photo opportunities. I am thinking about buying the 100-400, but reading its specs, I noticed that it is even heavier than the 70-200 and it may cause the same problem as the 70-200, being left at the hotel and leave me lensless.
Upvote
0
Yes, Antonioleandro, it feels every bit as heavy as the 70-200. It is a chunk, but it is a fabulous lens. If you are concerned about weight but still want a fantastic, sharp zoom, take a look at the 70-300L. Supersharp and significantly lighter.
Upvote
0
antonioleandro said:
+1 to Kynadog. When I hired a 70-300 I bought one. Whilst I can feel the weight in my bag, it is significantly less than f/2.8 options and the 100-400L. Hire one for the day or weekend as a test. Some dealers will offer to waive the hire fee if you buy at the end of the hire.
The depth of field is plenty thin enough at longer focal lengths, but that is an excuse for me to buy the 100L when I can. There are occasions when I want something longer, but that will always be the case, whatever is in the bag.
Upvote
0
Yes it's easily as weighty as a 70-200mm. I'm not particularly strong I've found it reasonably hand holdable. You wouldn't be holding it for hours on end. I have it on a black rapid strap which makes it much easier to manage. It would break you neck with a normal strap.
I must say it's a great lens. It would be even more amazing if it were F2.8 but it would way way heavier. It's sharp and gives a nice bokeh and colour.
I've been shooting alot of birds and sports with it (you'll see it on my Flickr link) and its been very good.
The photographer is more the limitation.
I have the 70-200mm II too which I now seem not to use as much but it too is a brilliant lens. So reliable and fast focussing. I wouldn't have one bad word to say about it. It's perfection in that 70-200mm range. Brilliant for portraits too. I had a portrait project going at one stage and start with primes but ended up using the 70-200mm exclusively as it was producing fantastic photos of people. They really loved them.
To get up close and personal with sport and birds the 100-400mm is a great reach.
I must say it's a great lens. It would be even more amazing if it were F2.8 but it would way way heavier. It's sharp and gives a nice bokeh and colour.
I've been shooting alot of birds and sports with it (you'll see it on my Flickr link) and its been very good.
The photographer is more the limitation.
I have the 70-200mm II too which I now seem not to use as much but it too is a brilliant lens. So reliable and fast focussing. I wouldn't have one bad word to say about it. It's perfection in that 70-200mm range. Brilliant for portraits too. I had a portrait project going at one stage and start with primes but ended up using the 70-200mm exclusively as it was producing fantastic photos of people. They really loved them.
To get up close and personal with sport and birds the 100-400mm is a great reach.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Love this lens. Got it for outdoor sports, but wondered what it could do with a full moon. This image is cropped with contrast and Lightroom's bumped up quite a bit, shot hand held with a 1Dx at f5.6, 1/1000, ISO 1600.
At full resolution, the stars come out. Curiously, I took additional shots with a 5D3 at ISO 800, but the stars weren't as prominent. But, could some of these "stars" be randomly excited pixels?
At full resolution, the stars come out. Curiously, I took additional shots with a 5D3 at ISO 800, but the stars weren't as prominent. But, could some of these "stars" be randomly excited pixels?
Attachments
Upvote
0
My fishing buddy Henrik, in deep concentration, waiting for the big one ... (didn´t get it ... I did 
)
5DSR, @400mm, 1/500s, f5.6, ISO200
)5DSR, @400mm, 1/500s, f5.6, ISO200
Upvote
0
The 5DSR exceeds my expectations. Resolution and sharpness is outstanding, but that was kind of as expected. What pleases me the most is that high ISO performance and shadow noise are better than expected. I thought I would be hitting the DR discussion again, but even in the sunny and high contrast Mediterranean noon worked without problems. I had some concern about moiré, since I chose the 5DSR, but so far I have not seen any.K-amps said:
I am very happy I decided to get it. If your computer can process the images and you can afford the storage (of course you can), I warmly recommend it. Bryan at TDP wrote a very positive review, but it is well deserved.
Upvote
0
These are all nice shots but so far I dont see the benefit of the 5DSr in any of these. Maybe the camera has just reached the limits of the lens and that's all that can be delivered. I really cant see the difference in similar shots taken with my 5D3 and 300 f2.8L.
I will say that I dont see any noise to speak of but I suspect these were take at ISO 800 or less. So there is nothing to compare.
I'd really like to see something taken at ISO 3200 or higher just to compare the noise against the predecessors. One would expect a finer noise pattern..as long as one does not get carried away with cropping.
So far these have not given me GAS as other recent models have...and I so much want to like it but...
I will say that I dont see any noise to speak of but I suspect these were take at ISO 800 or less. So there is nothing to compare.
I'd really like to see something taken at ISO 3200 or higher just to compare the noise against the predecessors. One would expect a finer noise pattern..as long as one does not get carried away with cropping.
So far these have not given me GAS as other recent models have...and I so much want to like it but...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)