What's next in 300-500mm primes and zooms?

Keith_Reeder

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
960
477
63
Blyth, NE England
IglooEater said:
Yup, focussing too. Very annoying if you use a polarizer.

OK, I think we're thinking about "external AF" in different ways - I get that some lens bodies move when AFing, but they're still doing the AF internally - the glass elements doing the focussing .
 
Upvote 0

Keith_Reeder

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
960
477
63
Blyth, NE England
privatebydesign said:
Off the top of my head 100 Macro non L, 85 f1.2, 85 f1.8, 50 f1.2, 50 f1.4 but I am sure there are plenty of others, like the MP-E 65, etc.

I've been asking about AF lenses, though.

That said - fair point about the likes of the 85mm f/1.2: I wasn't really thinking about lenses where the front element extends when focussing when I asked about "external AF", but I should've been.
 
Upvote 0
Keith_Reeder said:
IglooEater said:
Yup, focussing too. Very annoying if you use a polarizer.

OK, I think we're thinking about "external AF" in different ways - I get that some lens bodies move when AFing, but they're still doing the AF internally - the glass elements doing the focussing .

There are some AF lenses that focus externally though. My old (old) Nikon kit lenses that came with my D40 moved the front element forward and backward during focusing. I'm 99% sure that's what the Canon 50/1.4 does that makes it so fragile; because the front element moves during focus, if it's bumped in the front while not at MFD it can break the AF motor itself.

To flip it around, what are you thinking of as "externally focusing"? Because the only way I can take that is being able to watch the front element move during focusing, and that absolutely happens with some lenses.
 
Upvote 0

nc0b

5DsR
Dec 3, 2013
255
11
76
Colorado
I have compared my 400mm f/5.6 to my 70-200mm II with 2X TC III. For static shots in the central part of the frame, I see more variation from frame to frame (AF before each test shot) than between the two lens combinations. On the other hand, if I am shooting BIF, the prime wins hands down. The zoom can get lost in the blue sky and focus down to MFD. At that point I have no hope of reacquiring focus since there is no longer a hint of a visible image through the viewfinder. I purchased my 400/5.6 a few years ago after giving up on the zoom/TC combo for BIF, particularly raptors. The 400 prime is an old design, but it is also very sharp. Additionally I have a 100-400mm II that is wonderful for slower moving wildlife. I only wish it had a second focus limit option of 10 meters, as it can also lose lock and focus down to 3 meters. At that point any hope of re-locking on a raptor is gone. Since a used 400/5.6 could be as old as 1993, I chose to buy a new one for under $1200, and I couldn't be happier with my purchase.
 
Upvote 0
Keith_Reeder said:
IglooEater said:
Yup, focussing too. Very annoying if you use a polarizer.

OK, I think we're thinking about "external AF" in different ways - I get that some lens bodies move when AFing, but they're still doing the AF internally - the glass elements doing the focussing .

Hmm, not sure I understand here. I assumed that if the front element moves during focusing, it's somehow involved in the focussing process.. the formula would not be the same if it didn't move. Oh well my slow brain. You mean some dedicated group of elements doing the focussing regardless of what the rest does? Then what is my front element doing...?
 
Upvote 0
chrysoberyl said:
unfocused said:
The Digital Picture.

I haven't visited that site for several years, because there seemed to be a Canon bias. Having reviewed the image quality charts just now, the Canon 70-200 II + 1.4X TC clearly wins. I wonder why anyone would buy the Sigma 120-300 instead.

To be fair, at least they're explicitly canon oriented. It's not as though they pretend to be unbiased and go about hailing Canon and bashing everything else dpreview style. Everyone is biased. The most potent bias is the one unacknowledged.
 
Upvote 0

Keith_Reeder

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
960
477
63
Blyth, NE England
IglooEater said:
Oh well my slow brain. You mean some dedicated group of elements doing the focussing regardless of what the rest does? Then what is my front element doing...?

No, no - this is on me. I'd let my (sleep-deprived) imagination go off on a tangent about the idea that there were lenses out there where all of the actual mechanics of AF were on the outside of the lens.
 
Upvote 0
Keith_Reeder said:
IglooEater said:
Oh well my slow brain. You mean some dedicated group of elements doing the focussing regardless of what the rest does? Then what is my front element doing...?
(sleep-deprived)

Been there, done that. Check my past posts here, lol! At least I'm not going crazy (this time) ;)
 
Upvote 0
NancyP said:
I love my 400 f/5.6L, bought about 6 years ago new. If you like shooting BIF, and you don't have money for a 400 f/4 DO or money plus strength for a 500 f/4 LIS I or II , you can't do better than the old 7-element fossil, it has speedy AF and is fun to handle (well balanced).

Hmm...you have spoken highly of this lens before. And I am running low on patience.

Thanks!
 
Upvote 0
nc0b said:
I have compared my 400mm f/5.6 to my 70-200mm II with 2X TC III. For static shots in the central part of the frame, I see more variation from frame to frame (AF before each test shot) than between the two lens combinations. On the other hand, if I am shooting BIF, the prime wins hands down. The zoom can get lost in the blue sky and focus down to MFD. At that point I have no hope of reacquiring focus since there is no longer a hint of a visible image through the viewfinder. I purchased my 400/5.6 a few years ago after giving up on the zoom/TC combo for BIF, particularly raptors. The 400 prime is an old design, but it is also very sharp. Additionally I have a 100-400mm II that is wonderful for slower moving wildlife. I only wish it had a second focus limit option of 10 meters, as it can also lose lock and focus down to 3 meters. At that point any hope of re-locking on a raptor is gone. Since a used 400/5.6 could be as old as 1993, I chose to buy a new one for under $1200, and I couldn't be happier with my purchase.

This is exactly the kind of input I was looking for!

Thanks very much!
 
Upvote 0

DominoDude

Certified photon catcher
Feb 7, 2013
910
2
::1
NancyP said:
I love my 400 f/5.6L, bought about 6 years ago new. If you like shooting BIF, and you don't have money for a 400 f/4 DO or money plus strength for a 500 f/4 LIS I or II , you can't do better than the old 7-element fossil, it has speedy AF and is fun to handle (well balanced).

I second this one!
If I hadn't allowed mine to bounce around after a drop (including the body) I would still praise my 400/5.6L. The only bad thing about that lens concept is the f/5.6 part - it is a sunny weather lens. I got mine used for something like $800-900. The weight is roughly the same as that of the 70-200/2.8L IS.
 
Upvote 0