wildlife l lens dilema

M

mr bill

Messages
492
Edit My Images
Yes
At some point i will get a 400mm 5.6 for bird photography but as its 400mm and the nearest focusing distance is rather long i think i'd rather have a more versatile lens to start with. Looking at the 100-400, 70-300l or 300mm f4 is, is there much between them? Any guidance appreciated
 
If you can get a good copy of the 100-400mm then it's definitely a very versatile lens :) The 70-300mm L also seems to get good reviews
 
The 70-300L is a much better lens than the 100-400L but doesn't have as much reach. There are rumours of a new 100-400L coming soon and if it is anything like as good as the 70-300L I'll be very interested, although it'll probably be significantly more expensive.
 
Think I'm ruling out the 100-400 read too many negatives compared to the others and seems might be harder to get a good copy
 
I have the 100-400L and often share a hide with two 400/5.6 users. Another visitor has a 300 mm prime and 1.4 convertor. My lens has proved tack sharp from new. I figured that if I bought my lens new and it was soft I would just take it back but have never needed to. The two 400 owners both bought their lenses new just before I bought mine, one locally and one grey import. The grey one is softer at some settings but the owner has persevered with the settings that work. The 300 + 1.4 convertor is not truly competetive. What we have found with the birds sometimes getting very close is that I have much greater flexibility with the zoom.

We have also experimented on all three lenses, with various Canon 1.4x converters, Mk1,2 & 3. Without exception they have all contributed to some degradation of detail.

I love my 100-400 on both the 7D and laterly a 5D III. It is a very flexible lens but bl**dy heavy on a long walk! :)

There are some good deals on L lenses from proper dealers if you are lucky enough to live near one. They will guarantee the lens you buy, new or used and let you take it back if there is something wrong with it. They will also let you test the lens before you hand over your cash.

Given the disproportionate prices compared to new that these lenses go for on fleabay without any opportunity to go for a test drive I wouldn't go there.

Hope my ramblings help.
 
thanks for putting it back in the mix and making the decision harder when i thought i was getting somewhere :banghead: :LOL: i live nowhere near any camera place which doesn't help but wex and camera jungle seem good options
 
Last edited:
mr bill said:
thanks for putting it back in the mix and making the decision harder when i thought i was getting somewhere :banghead: :LOL: i live nowhere near any camera place which doesn't help but wex and camera jungle seem good options
Click to expand...

And it's got IS. Not to be sneezed at on a lens of this focal length. ;)
 
mr bill said:
Think I'm ruling out the 100-400 read too many negatives compared to the others and seems might be harder to get a good copy
Click to expand...

It's worth trying one in a shop just to know what to expect.
 
Jackwow said:
The 70-300L is a much better lens than the 100-400L but doesn't have as much reach. There are rumours of a new 100-400L coming soon and if it is anything like as good as the 70-300L I'll be very interested, although it'll probably be significantly more expensive.
Click to expand...
Why do say it's much better?
 
mr bill said:
Why do say it's much better?
Click to expand...

I would be interested to see te evidence to support that statement. They have been talking about a new 100-400 for some years now. Don't hold your breath. :)
 
i think i'd prefer the size/weight and zoom ring but its iq thats most important, there's the extra 100mm which i'd prefer but i cant see there being much if any in IQ after all they're all L Lenses
 
mr bill said:
Why do say it's much better?
Click to expand...

Because it is. Owned both and the 100-400L can only better the 70-300L in focal length. But a new 100-400L based on the same design as the 70-300L I would be very interested in.
 
mr bill said:
good answer :clap:
Click to expand...

Talking to yourself?

I did say that the 100-400L only betters the 70-300L in focal length, which implies that it is only as good as or not as good as the 70-300L in all other respects. For the avoidance and removal of doubt and IMHO of course the 70-300L is better than the 100-400L in all other respects.
 
I'll stick in a vote for the humble 400/5.6. Simpler design means all your money goes toward superb quality glass and build. If it were remodelled to an IS version II it'd be £2999 [pub-conversation level evidence: the original RRP of this one was £2000, and every other lens remodel means bumping up at least 50% to a newer RRP and no discounts!]. The only reason it's £1200 now is that the production line is 20 years old. For what it's worth, I also have a lowly EF 100-300 IS USM from the late 1990's which is far, far sharper than it has any right to be. No IS on that one, either - the IS came with the 70-300 IS USM which many reviews [e.g. photo zone] considered the 'hidden L' and which was the optical forebear of the new 70-300L. Might be worth a punt at under £100 - and at that price, it will never, never lose money.

Don't worry about the minimum focus distance for birds, unless you're sharing a bird box with them you rarely see the good stuff under 10ft! A bigger issue is the lack of IS, which helps steady the viewfinder experience [the first few times you use this, it's wobble-tastic trying to find your prey!]
 
Last edited:
Sigma big zooms are well worth a look. X-500mm but taking them to the full 500mm distorts best image I have of the moon was out of one.
 
That's the problem the whole point of buying a 500mm is for that range yet I read too often they are soft at the long which to defeats the object of the lens
 
True I've tried the xs-1 which seemed pretty good but he looked at fujis but wasn't too keen says they too big, no pleasing some lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top