Re: EF 300mm f/4L IS USM or EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
So in my opinion I stay with the big advantage of the zoom vs the prime for these types of photography.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Hah! I was thinking the exact opposite. Oh well, that's basically a matter of personal preference.
From what I've seen in my shooting thus far, primes are ideal when you are going out to shoot one type of subject. If I'm going to take close-up portraits of my daughter, I grab my EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. If I'm going to shoot flowers, I put myEF 100mm f/2.8<span>LMacro IS USM on the camera and I'm good to go. If my goal was to shoot birds, I'd go with your (Brendan's)suggestion of the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM as the best lens for that purpose in my current budget. But, when I just 'go out to shoot whatever' I find the flexibility of a zoom lens to be necessary. It's true that by adding the 300mm f/4L to my 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS and 200mm f/2.8L, I'd have a set of primes covering 3/4 of the range of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, and with much faster apertures - but I'd have to carry all three lenses and swap them frequently. In walking around with my 200mm f/2.8, I've felt the need to go both longer and shorter to get the desired composition, in situations where geography or time prevented me from using my feet for that purpose.
However, a little bit of doubt remains since I've never had a lens as slow as f/5.6. Then again, a 400mm f/2.8 is way outside my price range, and comparing the 100-400mm @ 400mm f/5.6 with the 400mm f/5.6 prime, having IS is a worthwhile trade for a bit of sharpness.
So, will the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM be my next lens? Very likely. But it's entirely possible that I'll end up also owning the 300mm f/4L (and the 135mm f/2L, and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and the 35mm f/1.4L, and the...well, you get the idea!).
Re: EF 300mm f/4L IS USM or EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
However, a little bit of doubt remains since I've never had a lens as slow as f/5.6....So, will the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM be my next lens? Very likely. But it's entirely possible that I'll end up alsoowningthe 300mm f/4L...
ARGH! I hate when my own words bite me in the butt. Why do I look at Craigslist??A used but in excellent condition EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens for $725. Being sold by a dentist (I mean, they are generally meticulous and they clean things for a living - the lens was pretty well taken care of, right?) - he wants to get closer, so he's moving to a 500mm f/4L IS.
Re: EF 300mm f/4L IS USM or EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
ARGH! I hate when my own words bite me in the butt. Why do I look at Craigslist??A used but in excellent condition EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens for $725. Being sold by a dentist (I mean, they are generally meticulous and they clean things for a living - the lens was pretty well taken care of, right?) - he wants to get closer, so he's moving to a 500mm f/4L IS.
$725?!?!?! I already own the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS but for $725 I think I'd have to consider adding theEF 300mm f/4<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS to my collection :-)
Re: EF 300mm f/4L IS USM or EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
ARGH! I hate when my own words bite me in the butt. Why do I look at Craigslist??A used but in excellent condition EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens for $725. Being sold by a dentist (I mean, they are generally meticulous and they clean things for a living - the lens was pretty well taken care of, right?) - he wants to get closer, so he's moving to a 500mm f/4L IS.
$725?!?!?! I already own the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color:#ff0000;"]L IS but for $725 I think I'd have to consider adding theEF 300mm f/4<span style="color:#ff0000;"]L IS to my collection :-)
That's ridiculous. I paid $1280 for mine [:S]
Re: EF 300mm f/4L IS USM or EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM?
Yeah. Pretty much too good a deal to pass up, and I don't see a problem with having both the 300mm f/4L prime and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L zoom in my kit (but I wouldn't carry them both on the same outing).
Now, in the Craigslist version of 2/3 of a Bermuda triangle, there's an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L listed nearby, and the seller will take $1200 for it. The seller is very candid, states he dropped the lens a little less than a year ago, and sent it to Canon for refurbishment,including a new front element, new IS, new main barrel, and new focusing ring.
I can afford both lenses, but does anyone have experience with or thoughts on buying a lens than was dropped and repaired? My initial inclination would be no - despite a factory refurbishment, I'd be worried about hidden damage that might show up sooner or later...
Re: EF 300mm f/4L IS USM or EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Yeah. Pretty much too good a deal to pass up, and I don't see a problem with having both the 300mm f/4L prime and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L zoom in my kit (but I wouldn't carry them both on the same outing).
Now, in the Craigslist version of 2/3 of a Bermuda triangle, there's an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L listed nearby, and the seller will take $1200 for it. The seller is very candid, states he dropped the lens a little less than a year ago, and sent it to Canon for refurbishment,including a new front element, new IS, new main barrel, and new focusing ring.
I can afford both lenses, but does anyone have experience with or thoughts on buying a lens than was dropped and repaired? My initial inclination would be no - despite a factory refurbishment, I'd be worried about hidden damage that might show up sooner than expected...
Well, I'd say buying both lenses is a waste, but that's just my opinion.
I would avoid lenses that have been dropped. If you're spending $1k on a lens make sure you don't get a dud. Play it safe.
brendan
Re: EF 300mm f/4L IS USM or EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Well, I'd say buying both lenses is a waste, but that's just my opinion.
I would avoid lenses that have been dropped. If you're spending $1k on a lens make sure you don't get a dud. Play it safe.
I think keeping both lenses may be a waste, yes. I've seen the 300mm f/4L IS come up on Craigslist at $900-1000 and disappear within a day or two. So, I think I'd have no trouble selling it down the road with no loss, same with the 200mm f/2.8L that I also picked up for ~40% less than a new copy.
I'm definitely leaning against the dropped and refurbed lens, though. If I do decide I prefer the prime, that would be harder to sell, too, since I'l be up front about the issue.
Thanks for all your input, Brendan!
