400 f5.6, 100-400, 500 f4 or mortgage? +views on prices returning to pre-crunch levels?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-09-2009, 01:51 PM
wickerprints

Re: 400 f5.6, 100-400, 500 f4 or morgage? +views on prices returning to pre-crunch levels?

The Nikkor 200-400/4 is large and heavy because it is a constant f/4 throughout its focal range. Since f-number = focal length / entrance pupil diameter, it follows that

front element diameter > focal length / f-number.

So, for a 400/4 lens, the front element must be at least 100mm diameter (and is often larger due to other optical and mechanical considerations). This is why, in theory, one could make a 200-400/2.8-5.6 with a 77mm filter diameter, but it is unlikely because those "other" considerations usually mean that it is not possible to sustain a near-maximal theoretical aperture throughout the entire focal range, and some compromise is necessary. After all, you need space for the cams, gears, and electronics to operate the diaphragm and focus/zoom the elements. A more realistic design would be something like 200-400/3.5-5.6. I would not care much for a 200-400/4-5.6 unless such a lens had superb imaging quality over a more aggressive design.

Another possibility, though perhaps less appealing, is to design for an 82mm filter diameter and try something like a 200-400/2.8-5.0. But now you've made the lens heavier and bulkier, and 82mm is not a very popular filter size.

On a somewhat different note, I don't know why, but I personally find non-Canon lenses to be rather...ugly, Nikkors especially. Nikon bodies seem ugly to me, too. There's something about their shape and proportion that makes them look "wrong" somehow and I can't put my finger on it. Conversely, Canon lenses are very pleasing to my eye. I mean, just look at the 85/1.2L II. It's just...beautiful. Like a fine crystal paperweight. About as heavy and solid as one, too. If I had one in my camera bag, it could double as a blunt weapon in case I ever got mugged. (Just kidding, I could never bring myself to throw a $1700 lens.) But back to my point, you don't see Nikon making that kind of gear, do you? [:D]
07-09-2009, 02:24 PM
Gian Luca

Re: 400 f5.6, 100-400, 500 f4 or morgage? +views on prices returning to pre-crunch levels?

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I have the 5D+5D MKII, Sigma 17-35, Canon 24-105L, Canon 70-210L F2.8 IS, Canon 100-400L <o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o:p><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I read that you are afraid to duplicate the focal range of the 70-210 and 100-400, in reality they are 2 very different lenses.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Personally I use the 70-210 for portraits, indoor or low light sport or events, while I use the 100-400L every time I need the extra reach, and mainly outdoor, nature pictures outdoor sport etc.. For me they do not compete too much.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o:p><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I also considered to sell the 100-400 to buy the 300 f2.8 + 1.4x and 2x. The 300 f2.8 is still light and small enough to be used without a tripod, and it is really nice also with 1.4x or 2x. I tested it 2 times, and I have to say that although is by far superior in image quality, I prefer to walk in the forest with the smaller 100-400, plus the possibility to zoom in and out is a big plus for me, especially if your fix lens is a 300+.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o:p><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o:p>

<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"]As far as the 500f4 prepare to use it almost exclusively with a strong tripod and the right support, so budget for 1.000 $ extra and the extra weight, as hand holding a lens like this is not really easy.
07-09-2009, 05:06 PM
Feanor

Re: 400 f5.6, 100-400, 500 f4 or morgage? +views on prices returning to pre-crunch levels?

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Kieran\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_filelist.xml" />
<link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Kieran\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_themedata.thmx" />
<link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Kieran\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_colorschememapping.xml" />

<style></style>


Wow, a lot of replies! I love this forum - I don't know anywhere else where
people would bothered to have read through the essay I opened this thread with,
much less replied with equally meaty posts [:D]. Here goes for a
multi-quoteathon without a multiquote button...!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I, too, suggest the 100-400. The 400 prime is sharper, but this can be
out-weighed in many circustances by the flexibility of the zoom and IS.
Furthermore, the IS will allow you to stop down more with TC. For example, the
100-400 and 1.4X or 2X TC can be stopped down to f/14 for increased sharpness,
which helps to close the sharpness gap of the fixed focal. That's only possible
with I.S. (For small subjects and close focus distances you'll want f/14 just
for the DOF, especially while you are perfecting your manual focus technique.)

On the other hand, if you are certain you can make do without zoom and IS,
the 400 would be a better choice. I suggest considering the 500mm f/4 only
after you've had sufficient time with the 100-400+TC. Many amateurs will not
want to give up the handholdability.

That is a very, very interesting point that I hadn't really thought about.
Proof, too, that all those reviews comparing the sharpness of the two lenses in
ideal situations don't really take account of real world use. But at the same
time I imagine that a lot of the time I’d use a telephoto for shooting moving
objects, in which case IS can be either of limited or no use.

At the moment I don't feel that the zoom would be that much use to me -
whenever I use my 2x Extender with my 70-200 I tend to use it at 400mm. If I
went for the 100-400 it would mainly be for the IS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Furthermore you're not happy with your 2x extender because you're trying to
use it on zooms, when you should be using it on primes. But you have no
such primes! You should consider exchanging out the 2x for the 1.4x which
is a better trade-off in quality and light loss vs. focal length gain.

Moreover, if you're considering a $5800 lens you may as well consider a
$6800 lens, the 400/2.8L IS. The difference in native angle of view is
only 1.17 degrees! Yet you gain <span>1
full stop of light and your previously "useless" 2x extender
would allow <span>AF @ 800/5.6.
This is precisely the situation where one realizes the true value of the EF
extenders. The 400/2.8L IS is, in my opinion, a much more versatile and
useful lens in that price range. And that's more evidence, I'm sorry to
say, that you've not thought this out quite thoroughly, since this lens wasn't
even under consideration. If you're going to dream big, make it REALLY
big.

(I've not quoted your whole post to save space...) It's very interesting
what you say about putting the 2x Extender on primes. In fact, I've read
recently about people getting much better results on the 70-200 with the 2x
when stopping down to f8 or below - something I hadn't tried as I'd wanted to
get as much shutter speed as possible and rarely had enough light (and didn't
bump up the ISO). It'll also be useful to experiment more with how I'd use a
400mm prime or zoom, especially after what Jon Ruyle said about 400 being
enough for many.

I see what you're saying about the 400 f2.8 but I don't think that's really
an option. The extra cost is just a bridge too far I think. But the lens is
also a lot bigger and a lot heavier - I'm already not sure how I'd manage
getting a 500 on an aircraft in my hand luggage along with the rest of my gear,
a tripod and the other non-camera bits and bobs I always like to take with me such
as books etc.

Interestingly, you use the word “need”, and I see what you’re saying. But
the flipside is that none of this is a need. It’s nice to be able to take
really good photos – and I’d like to be able to take pictures of wildlife from
a long way away. But I’m still not sure whether it’s £5,000 nice, if you follow
me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dallasphotog

Now for the real advice...I've only had the 5DMKII for 3 or 4 months, but
like you, I'm beginning to believe the biggest advantage of 22 megapixels is
cropping, cropping and cropping. You simply may find you don't need a
400-600mm focal length when you can cropto insane levels with the
5DMKII.This is especially true at ISO-100usingthe
EF70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM. I recently cropped a softball
player,shot at about 60', down to a loose thread on her uniform before
pixels began to show in the image.

I see what you’re saying but even with cropping 200mm isn’t enough IMO. I
managed to get some great photos of some very tame sparrows a while ago at
200mm but I was almost within the minimum focus distance of the lens, and the
animals were still just about as big as the spot-meter circle. That said, the
cropping argument could be used to say that I don’t need anything longer than
400mm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin

why not drool over the 600 f/4 instead?

I mean, if you're gonna go big, go BIG!

Hmm, well.... as said, I tend not to drool over stuff I’ll probably never
own. I’d already be stretching my medium-term financial plans to breaking point
by getting the 500. And tbh even if I had the money I think the 600 is just too
heavy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickerprints

I wonder what a 200-400/2.8-5.6L IS would look like. Certainly it
could be sharper (though not necessarily smaller) than the 100-400.

I’ve wondered exactly that. Or maybe a 300-500. If Sigma can make a (poor)
50-500 then surely Canon can make a good 300-500!
07-09-2009, 05:11 PM
Feanor

Re: 400 f5.6, 100-400, 500 f4 or morgage? +views on prices returning to pre-crunch levels?

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Kieran\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_filelist.xml" />
<link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Kieran\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_themedata.thmx" />
<link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Kieran\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_colorschememapping.xml" />



<style></style>



<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"][quote
user="Gian Luca]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]I have the 5D+5D MKII, Sigma
17-35, Canon 24-105L, Canon 70-210L F2.8 IS, Canon 100-400L <o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]I read that you are afraid to
duplicate the focal range of the 70-210 and 100-400, in reality they are 2 very
different lenses.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]Personally I use the 70-210 for
portraits, indoor or low light sport or events, while I use the 100-400L every
time I need the extra reach, and mainly outdoor, nature pictures outdoor sport
etc.. For me they do not compete too much.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]I also considered to sell the
100-400 to buy the 300 f2.8 + 1.4x and 2x. The 300 f2.8 is still light and
small enough to be used without a tripod, and it is really nice also with 1.4x
or 2x. I tested it 2 times, and I have to say that although is by far superior
in image quality, I prefer to walk in the forest with the smaller 100-400, plus
the possibility to zoom in and out is a big plus for me, especially if your fix
lens is a 300+.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]As far as
the 500f4 prepare to use it almost exclusively with a strong tripod and the
right support, so budget for 1.000 $ extra and the extra weight, as hand
holding a lens like this is not really easy.<o:p></o:p>

<span style="font-size: 11pt;"][/quote]

-----------end quote - for some reason the /quote function won't work!-------------------
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]Interesting,
and reassuring regarding the 100-400. I’d also be interested on how good the IQ
of the 300 f2.8 plus extender would be.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]Regarding
budgeting for a tripod – I already have a Feisol, which I believe is plenty
strong enough for the 500.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]To
further complicate the issue, I’ve been looking a bit at the Sigma 500 f4.5. I
know I said I didn’t want a Bigma but I’d mostly read about the 50-500 or
120-500. The prime looks a lot more interesting, especially second hand. [url="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69791]This thread[/url]
I found on google has made me very interested in the idea.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]Thanks
everyone, I’ll have to have a think, although feel free to add anything in the
meantime! :)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"]<o:p></o:p>
07-09-2009, 05:29 PM
wickerprints

Re: 400 f5.6, 100-400, 500 f4 or morgage? +views on prices returning to pre-crunch levels?

Why not check out the test charts on this site and see for yourself how various lenses compare?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APICo mp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&Lens=404
07-11-2009, 04:43 AM
Feanor

Re: 400 f5.6, 100-400, 500 f4 or morgage? +views on prices returning to pre-crunch levels?

Interesting, I've spent a lot of time on the review side of this site but never noticed that! Although there are no 500s there.
07-11-2009, 06:28 AM
Feanor

Re: 400 f5.6, 100-400, 500 f4 or morgage? +views on prices returning to pre-crunch levels?

I've just come across a 2nd hand Canon 500 f4.5 for £1200 (actually 1400 Euros). Any thoughts on this lens? I've noticed the Sigma doesn't have IS either.
07-11-2009, 11:36 AM
bob williams

Re: 400 f5.6, 100-400, 500 f4 or mortgage? +views on prices returning to pre-crunch levels?

Feanor,

If you got-get it. I know that each time i have settled for something less,I end up regretting it. As mentioned by so many others, there are a dozen different ways to come close to the range you want, but they all have significant limitations. I too am seriously contemplating the 500 f.4, but the money is not available yet. ALthough, I don't think i would give up my down payment on a house, I would certainly look for a deal where the down wasn't as much. Back to the 500; one thing I have realized is that when you buy a sigificant peice of equipment, there is always something else you are going to need or want. In this case, good usable support, new type of filters etc. For a good tripod and gimbal head, you are talking another grand or more.If you decide on something else, the 100-400 is a great lens. Its versitile, clear and you can get high quality background blurr. I personally have grown to really like the slide zoom on it--well, there is my 2 cents worth. Good luck on your decision.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page