I used the 300mm f/4L IS and was good performer. Now I use the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II + 2x III teleconverter. Looking forward to see the new Sigma offerings and the 400mm f/5.6L.AlanF said:
Upvote
0
What telephotos do we own?
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
My longest for quite some time was the 70-200 L IS 4.0.
Needed something longer for small birds. After a long wait for new 100-400 I jumped to Tamron 150-600 a month ago.
Sofar I am very pleased with it. It focuses well, offers effective IS, and produces better IQ, than I expected, even wide open (as open as it gets). Very good value for money in my view.
One example (one of the small birds, that were my main reason for it):
My garden Nuthatch: @600mm, 1/250, f/6.3, ISO 800.
(My brother actually mastered this shot - he is a pro
)
Needed something longer for small birds. After a long wait for new 100-400 I jumped to Tamron 150-600 a month ago.
Sofar I am very pleased with it. It focuses well, offers effective IS, and produces better IQ, than I expected, even wide open (as open as it gets). Very good value for money in my view.
One example (one of the small birds, that were my main reason for it):
My garden Nuthatch: @600mm, 1/250, f/6.3, ISO 800.
(My brother actually mastered this shot - he is a pro
)Attachments
Upvote
0
None. I rent as needed, that saves ma a lot of money 
Over the last 10-12 years I've rented EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, EF 300 f/2.8 IS USM, EF 400 f/2.8 IS USM, EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM, Extender EF 1.4X and Extender EF 2X. Used for Auto Racing and Surfing.
Over the last 10-12 years I've rented EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, EF 300 f/2.8 IS USM, EF 400 f/2.8 IS USM, EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM, Extender EF 1.4X and Extender EF 2X. Used for Auto Racing and Surfing.
Upvote
0
I rest my case for a new version of the 400 F5.6 ... it's coming in 2nd as the most popular lens.
New electronics. USM and IS ... latest glass coatings, perhaps a tweak here or there to the optics, a lick of new paint .. oh and the most important issue I think is a closer min focusing distance in line with the 300F4 or the 100-400 and it'll be a winner.
I'm stuck using a 70-200 2.8IS and at times a 2xIII, but wanting the "prime experience" with a clean, light, straight 400.
Not that keen even on the new 100-400, but may only get it for it's close focusing .. if it's the same as the old one at 1.8m. I don;t really need to lug around the extra stuff, as I really just want 400mm
Does sales have to slow down on a lens for Canon to think about a replacement ?
It still seems to sell well ... a friend of a friend only posted two days ago a pic of his new 400F5.6 sitting on the front seat of his car driving home from the shops after just purchasing it.
So for me it's a toss up of the closer focusing of the 300F4 or the reach of the 400F5.6 ... but the bigger issue is both lenses are so old they both are long overdue for a re-vamp ... and I want the new re-vamped models, not going to buy the older version no matter how good they still are, they are due for a new version of both.
New electronics. USM and IS ... latest glass coatings, perhaps a tweak here or there to the optics, a lick of new paint .. oh and the most important issue I think is a closer min focusing distance in line with the 300F4 or the 100-400 and it'll be a winner.
I'm stuck using a 70-200 2.8IS and at times a 2xIII, but wanting the "prime experience" with a clean, light, straight 400.
Not that keen even on the new 100-400, but may only get it for it's close focusing .. if it's the same as the old one at 1.8m. I don;t really need to lug around the extra stuff, as I really just want 400mm
Does sales have to slow down on a lens for Canon to think about a replacement ?
It still seems to sell well ... a friend of a friend only posted two days ago a pic of his new 400F5.6 sitting on the front seat of his car driving home from the shops after just purchasing it.
So for me it's a toss up of the closer focusing of the 300F4 or the reach of the 400F5.6 ... but the bigger issue is both lenses are so old they both are long overdue for a re-vamp ... and I want the new re-vamped models, not going to buy the older version no matter how good they still are, they are due for a new version of both.
Upvote
0
Omni Images said:
Three years ago I was in the same situation: 100-400 or 5.6 400 or wait vor a mark ii version ... I bought the 5.6 400 because the price gone up (1500 Euro) but I had one dealer who sold it for about 1200 Euro. So far it was a reasonable decision because no mark ii version hit the market in the meantime.
Your points are very good: minimum focus distance and missing IS limit the 5.6 400 but on the other hand this sturdy, compact and well designed lens gives you at least a 1 or 2 stop advantage compared to a not so sturdy design.
The IQ is stellar - just atmospheric turbulence limits its sharpness/contrast/IQ moderately to severely depending on the weather conditions/local conditions. So the 100-400 will give you the same IQ in the field most times I think. And I like to have the ability to use f/11 @ 800mm with a 2x TC (mark i) which works very well with this "lens of the 1st hour".
You have the 2x TC so the 4.0 300 might be an option for you with a 7D ii which has AF on centerpoint with f/8.0 @ 600mm ... but: no easy decisions at all ...
Last point: Check IQ under field conditions between your 70-200 with 2x TC versus 5.6 400 if you have access to a 5.6 400 - perhaps the difference isn't that big and you do not need to lug around to much gear.
Upvote
0
Yeah, mb66energy,
I'm not that impressed with the 70-200 2xII combo ...
In fact I'm leaning towards perhaps a 300F4 1.4III combo.. as the 300F4 min focus is 1.8m
My main issue is min focus .. as I can regularly get much closer to smaller birds than the 3.5 min focus on the 400 F5.6, so I would be constantly frustrated ... getting so close then not being able to get a shot ... you need to get that close with small birds ... thats why I love the 70-200 it focus's down to 1.4m and I can get that close, or being still they will get closer than even that.
The other option would be say extension tubes with the 400F4.5 ... not sure how that would work with bigger or further away subjects .. and constantly changing would a pain in the arse.
Both 300F4 and 400F5.6 have very high image quality ... and would be great choices ....
But Canon need to revise both as both have issues .... from what I have read ... 300F4 clunky IS .. first generation ... 400F5.6 way too far min focus and of course no IS.
I have a 1Dmk4, so I could still have auto focus to F8 with a 2x tele converter, but focus is painfully slow and seeks focus a lot in low light too.... so a lean clean prime would be better.
CANON make a new version 400 F5.6 IS with a min focus at least 1.8m and it'll be such a good selling lens for sure.
I'm not that impressed with the 70-200 2xII combo ...
In fact I'm leaning towards perhaps a 300F4 1.4III combo.. as the 300F4 min focus is 1.8m
My main issue is min focus .. as I can regularly get much closer to smaller birds than the 3.5 min focus on the 400 F5.6, so I would be constantly frustrated ... getting so close then not being able to get a shot ... you need to get that close with small birds ... thats why I love the 70-200 it focus's down to 1.4m and I can get that close, or being still they will get closer than even that.
The other option would be say extension tubes with the 400F4.5 ... not sure how that would work with bigger or further away subjects .. and constantly changing would a pain in the arse.
Both 300F4 and 400F5.6 have very high image quality ... and would be great choices ....
But Canon need to revise both as both have issues .... from what I have read ... 300F4 clunky IS .. first generation ... 400F5.6 way too far min focus and of course no IS.
I have a 1Dmk4, so I could still have auto focus to F8 with a 2x tele converter, but focus is painfully slow and seeks focus a lot in low light too.... so a lean clean prime would be better.
CANON make a new version 400 F5.6 IS with a min focus at least 1.8m and it'll be such a good selling lens for sure.
Upvote
0
FEBS said:
Do you use it - if needed for a longer period - icw monopod or tripod?
If monopod, how much time did you need to control the balance on the monopod? It seems to easy to loose the straight horizontal line (while being in landscape mode) Thanks
Upvote
0
I have the 70-200 II, 100-400, 400/5.6, and 500/4 I. All are sharp, although the 100-400 is the weakest of the bunch. I handhold all of them, including the 500. I have used 1.4x III on all. Generally the extender degrades the contrast and sharpness on all of them, although I notice it the least with the 70-200. If the 100-400 and 400 were updated, I'd buy both. I'll probably upgrade my 500 to the 500 II or the 200-400, as the IS in my 500 is only 1.5 stops or so.
Upvote
0
I have the 100-400L and the 70-300 non L altough the 70-300 hasn't seen the light of day since I bought the 100-400L.
Upvote
0
The longest I have is the 180mm Sigma. It is plenty long enough for the type of shooting I do.
Often thought about getting a longer FL lens, but never could justify the cost/size/weight.
Often thought about getting a longer FL lens, but never could justify the cost/size/weight.
Upvote
0
400 f5.6.... Get it...use it (a lot) and you will LOVE it! For birds and other wildlife it always goes with me. Not always the case for my 500 f4. The 400 produces stunning pictures (even wide open). The more you use and your skills improve the less important IS becomes.
Upvote
0
Helios68 said:
Would you still love it just as much if it weighs 25% more? And cost twice as much?
The current lens is almost perfect the way it is, like, dead on, they did such a good job 20 years ago that no-one since has bothered to compete.
If you have any need for a 400mm lens, just get one. With the complete lack of competition they probably won't upgrade it. Ever.
As long as we're dreaming though.
I would be interested in a DO upgrade, cut a few inches off that bad boy, and make it sharper, give it real weather sealing, and you have something that the competition won't be able to touch for another quarter century.
Then add IS in 2040.
Upvote
0
I have the 100-400L, the 70-300L and a 28-300L. The 28-300L rarely comes off my 1D X! However, I am ready to purchase a true "Great White" (I know, they are actually gray). It will probably be the 300 2.8 II. Although, I am tempted to go with a 400 2.8 II, I think the 300 will best serve my needs (BIF, wildlife & motorsports).
Of all of the lenses that I have read reviews on, just about everyone rates the 300 2.8 II as probably the sharpest telephoto lens that Canon makes. It also seems that it suffers the least when teamed-up with the 1.4X III and 2.0X III TCs. That tells me a lot, as does having seen many fine images made with that lens on this site and in numerous publications.
I would also like to see an updated/upgraded 100-400L, the flexibility of that zoom range makes it a very handy lens indeed.
Of all of the lenses that I have read reviews on, just about everyone rates the 300 2.8 II as probably the sharpest telephoto lens that Canon makes. It also seems that it suffers the least when teamed-up with the 1.4X III and 2.0X III TCs. That tells me a lot, as does having seen many fine images made with that lens on this site and in numerous publications.
I would also like to see an updated/upgraded 100-400L, the flexibility of that zoom range makes it a very handy lens indeed.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
