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

**Feanor** · 07-09-2009, 05:06 PM

oNotPromoteQF />
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables />
<w:SnapToGridInCell />
<w:WrapTextWithPunct />
<w:UseAsianBreakRules />
<w

ontGrowAutofit />
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark />
<w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp />
<w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables />
<w

ontVertAlignInTxbx />
<w:Word11KerningPairs />
<w:CachedColBalance />
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math" />
<m:brkBin m:val="before" />
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--" />
<m:smallFrac m:val="off" />
<m:dispDef />
<m:lMargin m:val="0" />
<m:rMargin m:val="0" />
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup" />
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440" />
<m:intLim m:val="subSup" />
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr" />
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<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 [

]. Here goes for a
multi-quoteathon without a multiquote button...!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Threaded View

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

Posting Permissions