Originally Posted by Sheiky
Yes...not planning on setting up a bird feeder in the garden with a tripod on the deck...
Yes, I have the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, and for times when that's not wide enough, also the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.
Complete my collection (of lenses)? I had no idea that was even possible! [:P]
At f/4.0, the 300 is as sharp as the 100-400 is at f/5.6 at 400mm. If using for treks, the 300mm is lighter and I think its closefocusing ability is invaluable. It also gives far better bokeh and autofocuses faster. If you have a 200mm prime and don't need the 400mm focal length because you don't shoot a ton of birds, Why not go for the 300mm?
Or you weren't close enough. You can get close with your feet instead of big glass. [pi]
John, both are nice lenses. I don't think you can go wrong either way. My vote is for the 300 f/4.
brendan
Haha John no I stated it wrong...I meant: add to your already nice collection [A] Your still missing a lot of important lenses in my opinion. No photographer can do without at least owning one 500-1200mm prime [:P]
Back to reality: Yup Brendan I wasn't close enough. But as I stated and John admitted: he's not going to sit still and wait for a picture. In a lot of circumstances you simply can't get closer! For instance if you spot a bird of prey, you must be really carefull to come within 10m/300ft with it. When you have had a 70-200 like me, even at 200mm you have to crop A LOT to gain a nice picture. It's not called wildlife for no reason.
And the statement that a 400mm lens is a bird in flight lens? I don't really get that. I guess it's for birders only. I've seen some amazing shots from Nate with his 500mm and those were not in flight.
Also the closefocussing of the 300mm prime is only 30cm less than the 100-400. And in those cases he could better switch to his macro anyway.
So in my opinion I stay with the big advantage of the zoom vs the prime for these types of photography. I'm convinced that the 300mm is a great lens but just for the fact that I've never seen a journalist shooting with a prime, doesn't mean he couldn't...it's just not working for that type of photography where you need to be versatile and you don't really get a second chance most of the time.
Maybe if your doubt stays John, try to rent them both. Or just try out the 100-400 in mint condition that you saw. If you like it...go for it!
Good luck mate.
Jan
Well, sigh. I had decided on the 100-400mm, for the flexibility of the zoom - wandering around with my 200mm prime has convinced me that a zoom will be more useful for me. But sadly, the guy who listed it for $1100 changed his mind and decided to keep it (fortunately before I drove the 40 miles to pick it up!).
Thanks all for your input!
That's because it's light, slow and doesn't have IS. In many situations, there's just not enough light to use it effectively. But for BIF, it's perfect. The 500 f/4 is longer (so better for birds), has IS, and can let in twice as much light. That's the difference.
Hah! I was thinking the exact opposite. Oh well, that's basically a matter of personal preference.
Cheers
brendan
Thanks Brendan that explains the BIF lensquestion I had [:P]
Yeah it's probably a personal preference, but in't it always?
I dislike primes while hiking etc, especially long primes (200mm+), for the fact that if you don't like your composition you have to step back/forward a lot to seriously change your composition which isn't always possible because of obstructions or just shortage of time.
John, I'm sorry to hear that your deal didn't work out. Have you someway made up your mind concerning lens choice?
Jan
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!).
Hi John,
This lens is very sharp and it is good enough to shoot a hovering bee. Please see here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/5471665/4315036281/
oops..sorry, I meant the 300 f/4 IS.... []
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote