20D Camera, 100-400 Lens

[ginger_55]

That is my decision. Unless there is a very strong reason not to buy the lens, then I cannot see that I will buy a lens. I have a 28-135 that I really like. I don't see a strong reason to buy a 70-200. I walked out of the wildlife center yesterday, with my 75-300 lens on, the crummy one, but there were many things at a distance that I might have wanted to reach visually. Tall trees, water.......etc. I would not have felt comfortable messing with extenders etc.

This is the lens: Canon 100-400 EF f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (?) autofocus lens USA.
It is going to break my bank, but it is also for the long haul. It is a heavy lens, if I can't handle it, I can sell it, but at least I will know.

I have read some bad things about this lens, what is the alternative? Do any of you own it. I am a little confused with all the posts I have read.

And, of course, I am still, and will, buy the 20D. It is the waiting for the money to be deposited that is killing me now............just waiting.

To coin a phrase, time to burn, but nothing else. (Can't even do the challenge, haven't seen a real fire in years)

ginger:dunno

[Andy]

(Can't even do the challenge, haven't seen a real fire in years)

ginger:dunno

fire, matches, or candles. now get creative and start shooting :deal

regarding the lens, well now, you'll know when you get it, eh? there are plenty of fine pics being taken with that glass everyday. just remember, you *must* keep your shutter speeds up, and that i.s. won't stop subject blur due to motion!

[blackwaterstudio]

It is going to break my bank, but it is also for the long haul. It is a heavy lens, if I can't handle it, I can sell it, but at least I will know.

ginger:dunno
Ginger this lens will be heavy, if I'm not mistaken it is recommened to be used with atleast a monopod.

However, with the IS I'm sure you could shoot some shots with it, but after alittle bit your arms would grow tired.

[ginger_55]

I have scoured b&h, don't see an alternative. don't want fixed focus. My current crummy lens is 23 oz. same f stops. is.

I will look at alternatives, but ?? don't want fixed, don't want less length.

Would consider a different brand, ???

ginger

[mercphoto]

That is my decision. Unless there is a very strong reason not to buy the lens, then I cannot see that I will buy a lens.

I've heard very good things about the lens. I've seen some great images with it. If you have good light, the f/5.6 won't be a problem either. With the 20D you can easily use ISO 800. Even 1600 is still quite nice. And 3200 is very usable if you want to noise-reduce (or convert to B&W, in which case the noise looks cool). Whether you can hand-hold it or not depends on your muscles. I've played with one before and don't think it would be an issue for me. YMMV.

[ehughes]

Ginger, I have the 100-400 and I love it. Most if not all of my wildlife pictures have been taken with it. It's really not that heavy of a lens ( or, I'm just used to it ). I have no trouble at all using this without a tripod, but like Andy mentioned keep your shutter speeds up.

Ed


That is my decision. Unless there is a very strong reason not to buy the lens, then I cannot see that I will buy a lens. I have a 28-135 that I really like. I don't see a strong reason to buy a 70-200. I walked out of the wildlife center yesterday, with my 75-300 lens on, the crummy one, but there were many things at a distance that I might have wanted to reach visually. Tall trees, water.......etc. I would not have felt comfortable messing with extenders etc.

This is the lens: Canon 100-400 EF f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (?) autofocus lens USA.
It is going to break my bank, but it is also for the long haul. It is a heavy lens, if I can't handle it, I can sell it, but at least I will know.

I have read some bad things about this lens, what is the alternative? Do any of you own it. I am a little confused with all the posts I have read.

And, of course, I am still, and will, buy the 20D. It is the waiting for the money to be deposited that is killing me now............just waiting.

To coin a phrase, time to burn, but nothing else. (Can't even do the challenge, haven't seen a real fire in years)

ginger:dunno

[Steve Cavigliano]

Ginger,

First of all, congratulations :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

You are gonna love the camera and, from all I read/see/hear, you're gonna love that lens too :thumb Yeah, it's a bit on the heavy side. All fast telezooms are. Some are even heavier (like the Bigma). Not to worry. Even if you have to go the monopod route, you will really notice a difference in your tele shots. More detail, better contrast and color and very good sharpness. Just my opinion, but I think you are gonna be in hog heaven :wink

There's no doubt about the camera. It's right there at the top. Regardless of lens used, you will really enjoy this well made, low noise, super fast black beauty.

I'm very happy for you. :clap

Just a thought, you might save a few $ by looking for a previously owned 100-400mm. I think there may be a Dgrinner, or two, looking to sell this lens.

Steve

[Ann McRae]

Just a thought, you might save a few $ by looking for a previously owned 100-400mm. I think there may be a Dgrinner, or two, looking to sell this lens.

Steve[/QUOTE]
If there were two, I'd be interested in the other one!
That, or a 300mm f4


ann

[tmlphoto]

Ginger,
I am not sure you will like the 100-400. It is pretty heavy and the zoom is a little unusual. It is a push-pull type of zoom, which can be a little difficult. Having said that, I really like the pictures I can get with this lens. I usually carry it around with a monopod. Another strategy, would be to get a 70-200 and add the 1.4x converter for an effective focal length of almost 300. (about a 450 ) with the 1.6 sensor conversion. The quality with the converter is excellent. The f4.0 is lighter, but the 2.8 IS is sweeet. You can also add a 2x converter without too much loss of quality. If I could only keep one long lens it would be my 70-200 2.8 IS. I'm Even considering trading my 100-400 for a long prime lens. I think the best buy would be the 70-200 f4.0 with a converter.
My 2 cents.
Thomas

[fish]

Ginger, have you considered renting a 100-400? Some folks get really good shots with that lens, but it is rather long in the tooth and ripe to be replaced with an updated/faster version with current IS technology.


BTW, you don't have to remove the 1.4x. Just leave it attached to the 70-200/2.8 IS.

[Andy]

....but it is rather long in the tooth...

so is harry behret. can we do anything about that? :lol3

[ginger_55]

Ginger,
I am not sure you will like the 100-400. It is pretty heavy and the zoom is a little unusual. It is a push-pull type of zoom, which can be a little difficult. Having said that, I really like the pictures I can get with this lens. I usually carry it around with a monopod. Another strategy, would be to get a 70-200 and add the 1.4x converter for an effective focal length of almost 300. (about a 450 ) with the 1.6 sensor conversion. The quality with the converter is excellent. The f4.0 is lighter, but the 2.8 IS is sweeet. You can also add a 2x converter without too much loss of quality. If I could only keep one long lens it would be my 70-200 2.8 IS. I'm Even considering trading my 100-400 for a long prime lens. I think the best buy would be the 70-200 f4.0 with a converter.
My 2 cents.
Thomas
Thomas, why don't you buy a 70-200 f4, or f2.8 IS, with the converter, instead of a long prime? Oh, you already have one...... why not just use the extenders and not have a long lens?

Since you are considering getting rid of you 100-400, perhaps you would like to sell it to Ann or me.

We don't have a place to rent one, and if I did, I couldn't buy one, I am already scraping bottom now. I have considered just buying the camera and no lens, if I can't find something I want. I read that it was ready to be replaced. That turned me off, but I can't find an alternative. I don't want a lens that doesn't zoom, I am on docks, I can't just back up to get the picture.

I was out today and I used three lenses that went from 18mm to 300mm. I don't want one that only goes to 300, I have one of those now. It may be crummy, but I think part of my problem, after reading someone's post, is that I shoot everything in RAW, so I would have that problem with any lens.

My style is to shoot a lot if I am shooting. It is also to sit a lot. Kind of like a hunter. I have to wait for birds to show up, or watch the dogs play, whatever. I like to sit........so I do. I am not holding a lens up all the time. The biggest problem will be in my backpack, I would think. I take it with me, then set it down, and shoot.

Besides, I use my non glass 28-135 all the time now, a lot of the time. It covers about all of the things I would want the 70-200 for. I think that is an awkward length, but I would buy it, if I didn't already own the 28-135, am happy with it, I just want a better longer lens. And I can't find anything else to suit my needs, except that outdated push pull heavy lens. Also if they come out with a 2.8, the price would likely go up. And as I pointed out, I am often in situations where backing up is not an option.

I live from tax return to tax return. I will not be saving money to buy a lens, this is it...........so it is this or a TV (ours is long in the tooth and used). Not as big as Andy's monitor, either.

ginger

[marlinspike]

I was out today and I used three lenses that went from 18mm to 300mm. I don't want one that only goes to 300, I have one of those now. It may be crummy, but I think part of my problem, after reading someone's post, is that I shoot everything in RAW, so I would have that problem with any lens.

Besides, I use my non glass 28-135 all the time now, a lot of the time. It covers about all of the things I would want the 70-200 for.

I live from tax return to tax return. I will not be saving money to buy a lens, this is it...........so it is this or a TV (ours is long in the tooth and used). Not as big as Andy's monitor, either.

ginger
Obviously some sniping was done to the above quotation. Here are my 2 cents. You currently have a 75-300. The problem with that lens is 200-300 are basically non-useable, unless you want to stop down to f/11 or smaller. You'd get better results with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 2x converter wide open at an effective f/5.6, much better if you stopped it down to f/8 (with a 1.4x extender you would get MUCH better pictures, even at the wide open effective f/4 - a 1.4x TC loses very little quality). Also, shooting RAW does not mean all pictures will be crummy before post processing. When I had a 75-300 I needed to sharpen the pictures a lot, they lost a lot of detail if I had the lens wide open, I had to severely bump saturation and contrast. Once I got a 70-200 I found that I do very little sharpening, bump saturation up just a few points, and quite frankly the RAW files looked better than the post-processed ones from the 75-300.

As far as the TV, buy one and you'll be kicking yourself. I'm going on the assumption that the TV wouldn't cost more than a 100-400L. AFAIK none of the 3:2 ratio HDTV's are in that price range right now. I say that in 5 years or less, 3:2 ratio HDTV will be the norm (the HD isn't a huge deal, but the 3:2 is, unless you like black bars on everything you watch. not only are the black bars annoying but they basically waste a good bit of your screen.).
Richard

[ginger_55]

Thanks, Richard. That makes sense. I just got up, so this is short. I am glad to hear from someone who has been in the 75-300 lens situation. The combination as you described it, and I would go with the 2x s, it would save me money, too.
I just noticed that you upped it from the one Lynn bought to 2.8 IS. That would not save me money, would probably cost me. I will check. I know Andy suggested the Sigma, is about 799.00, or it was. Will try to find out more about that, too. (When I mentioned it yesterday, the IS seemed to be in doubt, I don't know, but will check)

Someone made the comment that I could just leave the extender on, that would make it more practical for me.

Am thinking on it, and I am sincerely glad for all the input.:thumb

ginger

[marlinspike]

Well, personally I have the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, but I figured since a 2x extender would make it constant f/5.6 and the 100-400 has IS, you might find the IS helpful. As far as the Sigma, I had bought one. Worked on the original seller's 20D, didn't focus properly on my dRebel. I sent it to sigma 3 time, the first time they replaced the main flex board, the second time they returned it saying nothing is wrong, the third time they gave me a new lens. Every time my focus problems were both very noticeable and exactly the same. I sold that replacement lens to someone with a 1D. It works fine on his camera. If you want to take a chance, you can find them new for less than 799 (check adorama.com or digitalfotoclub.com - digitalfotoclub has it for $669 -...just check around and make sure to check the store against resellerratings.com). You can also find them used for under $600.
Richard

[Steve Cavigliano]

Thanks, Richard. That makes sense. I just got up, so this is short. I am glad to hear from someone who has been in the 75-300 lens situation. The combination as you described it, and I would go with the 2x s, it would save me money, too.
I just noticed that you upped it from the one Lynn bought to 2.8 IS. That would not save me money, would probably cost me. I will check. I know Andy suggested the Sigma, is about 799.00, or it was. Will try to find out more about that, too. (When I mentioned it yesterday, the IS seemed to be in doubt, I don't know, but will check)

Someone made the comment that I could just leave the extender on, that would make it more practical for me.

Am thinking on it, and I am sincerely glad for all the input.:thumb

ginger
Ginger,
The Sigma is $682 from Delta International (highly rated/recommended retailer). A really nice lens, but it is heavy. I believe it's like an ounce or two lighter than the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS ( a bit over 3 pounds). As mentioned, with a 1.4X TC, the reach, as well as image quality will be decent (not as much reach as the 100-400, or the Bigma, but decent).


Steve