Re: 70-200f/4 vs. 100-400
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturac
I had been told the 100-400 is basically used for objects that don't move, but I have seen some great bird shots, including the hummingbird in flight on the bird photo post on this site.
Who told you that? The 100-400mm was practically made for things that move, the zoom range allows you to frame your subject as it moves in and out. It dosen't have the fastest apeture but with todays cameras in decent light it's sufficient. Unless you are trying to shoot low light action then it can be a problem.
From the intonation of your post it sounds like you are trying to shoot birds and need reach. The 100-400mm is far superior for that.The 400mmf/5.6 would beeven better but it's quite limiting for other uses.If you are using it for more of a general purposezoomthen a 70-200mm might make more sense, but a 100-400mm would be an excelent choice also. If you aregoing to mix someportriats a 70-200mm f/2.8non-IS or ISwould be you best choice. It would help a lot in low light also.
John.
Re: 70-200f/4 vs. 100-400
Re: 70-200f/4 vs. 100-400
Let me expound on my ignorance. Take an 8x10 picture and pretend it was taken with a full frame camera. Now rip a little over half of it off and throw it away. Ex-friends pic work real good for this. What you have left is what the crop sensor would have gotten standing in the same place with the same lens.
Re: 70-200f/4 vs. 100-400
My two cents worth, since you are considering the 70-200 and the 100-400 and they are really different but can be used for similar purposes, would be to go for the 70-300mmL. This has the latest 4 stop IS, weather sealing, fantsatic image quality and would work great on the 7D. If you already had a 70-200 or a 100-400, then the 70-300mm is not worth considering.
But since you don
Re: 70-200f/4 vs. 100-400
This question depends heavily on what you plan on primarily shooting. If its wildlife then obviously the 100-400 is the clear choice because you will want the most reach possible. If its more general purpose and low light then one of the 70-200mm lenses is what you should get.
Although, as Steve said, the 70-300 is also an excellent choice if you plan on doing a mix of things.
I have the 100-400 and love it, but of course I primarily photograph birds, so I needed the 400mm. The only limitation to it is low light use, but it does fine in most situations even with fast moving birds.
Nick
Re: 70-200f/4 vs. 100-400
As for the throw-away/enlarge debate of crop sensors. Yes. Both. Take your 25MP fullframe image. Throw away half of it, and you have a 12.5MP image. But your 7D is 18MP, so obviously it's also enlarged too.
I'm similarly attempting to figure out my telephoto lens choices, and it's certainly not easy. I want long, high quality, fast, cheapish, light, and versatile... and that just doesn't exist. I'll confuse you further with my ramblings of lens choices, in case it helps you figure out what you're looking for.
100-400mm - older IS. Not as sharp as the latest lenses. Goes to 400mm, or further with manual focus + extender.
70-300mm - newer IS. Sharp. Only goes to 300mm. Potentially 420mm w/ a 3rd party extender and manual focus.
70-200mm f/4 - Good IS. Sharp. Only 200mm, but at F4. Can do 280mm w/ extender
70-200mm f/2.8 - No IS at the price range I'd be looking at. Decent sharpness. Only 200, but at F2.8. Can do 280@f/4 and 400@f/5.6
The 400 isn't fast, or the highest quality, though it's quite good
The 300 is high quality, but isn't fast, or quite as long, though it is light.
The 200f4 is sort of fast, and high quality, but not long or versatile (swapping extenders on and off isn't ideal). The only advantage this combo has over the 70-300 is the faster aperture, and I think the extender disadvantage overpowers that.
The 200f2.8 is fast, but not the top end image quality. Not long or versatile. Does the 2.8 advantage overcome the convenience of the reach you get with 70-300 or 100-400?
I'm not certain I need the 'fast' at the same time as 'long', so I was considering the 70-300, or 100-400 along with, say, a 200mm F/2.8. This would eliminate the extender use, and allow for fast and long. But, potentially, I could use an extender on the 200 and get 280 F/4, which would be a faster 300 than the 70-300 would give... which brings me to 200mm f/2.8, 1.4x Extender, 100-400mm. We've now we've left the area of cheap... though non of these would necessarily have to be purchased at the same time, softening the blow.
Sadly, the solution seems to be lottery tickets. :)
Re: 70-200f/4 vs. 100-400
Quote:
Originally Posted by andnowimbroke
Let me expound on my ignorance. Take an 8x10 picture and pretend it was taken with a full frame camera. Now rip a little over half of it off and throw it away. Ex-friends pic work real good for this. What you have left is what the crop sensor would have gotten standing in the same place with the same lens.
You are correct. Magnify would also be agood term to describe the affect of 1.6 crop cameras such as the 7D. I won't go into all the other things 1.6does to your images, that can get into a lengthy discussion[:P]
John.
Re: 70-200f/4 vs. 100-400
To expand on what David has contributed, if I was starting out and looking for image quality and versatility, but also wanted something that was very good for birds, I would buy two lenses, I don
Re: 70-200f/4 vs. 100-400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Magnify would also be agood term to describe the affect of 1.6 crop cameras such as the 7D.
I have to disagree with that. The 1.6x is not magnification, it's cropping. The subject doesn't get bigger with a 1.6x FOVCF sensor, rather, less of the background is visible. Take a 100mm macro lens, for example. At the minimum focus distance, it's delivering 1:1 magnification, regardless of the camera on which it's mounted. On a 1.6x crop body, it's still 100% life size, not 160% life size. The difference is, with a FF camera you can image nearly the full surface of a quarter, whereas with an APS-C camera you can't even image the full surface of a dime at 1:1. The same is true with distant subjects - put a 400mm lens on a FF and a crop body and take a picture of the same bird from the same distance, and that bird will cover the same physical area on both sensors. If you're going to argue that the crop sensor 'magnifies' because that bird covers more pixels on the crop sensor than on the FF sensor, that's a specious argument because if you follow that logic, you must also believe that a 60D is more 'magnified' than 40D, simply beacuse the pixels are smaller.
Was that a lengthy discussion? [8-|]
Back to the OP, really it comes down to what you're shooting. If shooting at 300mm on your 7D means you're still going to be heavily cropping your image in post, because your subject(s) are small - like birds - then you need all the focal length you can get, and a lens that goes to 400mm is better than a lens that goes to 300mm. If 300mm is long enough, the new 70-300mm L zoom looks like quite a nice lens. Personally, I'm quite happy with my 100-400mm on my 7D; I started with a 300mm f/4L IS prime, and found that I needed more reach. The only way to get more reach with out the image degradation resulting from a teleconverter, keep IS, and stay under $2000 is the 100-400mm.
So, if you don't mind the weight of the 100-400mm for your uses, and are shooting birds/wildlife, it's a great choice with a lot of versatility. If you don't need to get to 400mm, either the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or the 70-200mm f/4L IS would be good options, depending on whether you'd prioritze the extra 100mm or the faster aperture at the long end.
The 70-200mm f/4 and the 100-400mm lenses really have different purposes - the former is a general-purpose telephoto zoom, while the latter is a longer zoom lens most suitable for birds and wildlife. The 70-300mm is somewhat of a hybrid of the two, albeit a hybrid with great IQ, convenient dimensions, and nice features like weather sealing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidEccleston
But, potentially, I could use an extender on the 200 and get 280 F/4, which would be a faster 300 than the 70-300 would give... which brings me to 200mm f/2.8, 1.4x Extender, 100-400mm.
Let me throw one more thought at you - 100-400mm, 135mm f/2L, and perhaps the 1.4x. That combo gives you something you can't get from a zoom, a full stop faster f/2 aperture at 135mm, which is great for indoor action or outdoor portraits (a little long indoors on a crop body). You can add the TC to the prime and get 189mm f/2.8 with good IQ.
