Long Lens Advice

talras

talras

Messages
299
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Folks

Your advice, thoughts and comments please.

I tend to shoot wildlife and currently use a Canon 100-400 with a 7D. I seem to always be at the 400mm end so wondered if a fixed prime would give better results? Now I would love a 300mm 2.8 but finances just don't allow it so I was looking at the 400mm 5.6. My concerns are the lack of IS although I rarely shoot handheld prefering a gimbal. The 300mm F4 is another contender using a 1.4 converter for length as required.

What are your thoughts on the above and reviews on the glass mentioned?

Cheers Ian
 
300 f4 is a nice lens. Light and takes the 1.4 pretty well. Focus is a bit slow and the IS is only 2 stops.

Whether the 300 + 1.4 is better than the 400 I would doubt. The 400 although it's been around since 1993 it has a reputation as being a very sharp fast focusing lens.

I think if I didn't have a 300 then I would very seriously consider the 400.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/173-canon-ef-400mm-f56-usm-l-lab-test-report--review

If you did go for the 400 I'm not sure that the 7D will AF at f8 if you fancied trying a 1.4 on it. Think it's only 1 series and 5D 3 bodies that do it.
 
Last edited:
If you feel you are a bit short and you are already at 400mm then I doubt that you will gain an awful lot by switching.

A good copy of the 400mm prime will give the sharpest results but only when conditions are right. Focus should also be quicker.
 
Thanks guys.

I'm not really concerned that I'm short. Just wondered whether IQ would be better with a fixed prime. I thought it may be better than a zoom?

I realise the convertor would be of no use with the 400mm.
 
400/5.6 is incredibly sharp prime, destroys the zoom from [limited] experience.
With gimbal head this would be very very nice.
TC is not the most practical, but you could put 1.4x for some static long shots.
 
I have been bashing my brains out with the same question, 300, 100-400 or 400 prime. In the end I went for the 400 prime, I'm lucky as I can also use my 1.4 tc as I have a 5d3 which centre spot AFs. But I aso have a 70-200 f4 IS and a 2x tc I can use. So far I think for me the IS helps a great deal even at airshows with a fast shutter speed. I know its not supposed to but it does seem to. So for me I'm undecided if I can use the 400 to its best advantage, I was fortunate I got my 400 for a very good price so if I sell it I won't loose much. Maybe hold off until you get a similar deal, the light is poor now in general so you may not get much use out of a 5.6 lens until spring time anyway. All the reports I read said the 400 was better than the 100-400 zoom or the 300 with a tc.
 
Last edited:
Going to throw the Sigma xx-500mm into the ring as you mentioned OS. It does have a very good OS, but you need good light to make the most out of it.

I've had the 150-500mm for a while and gotten some what I think are ok shots. I know you mentioned prime, but nothing to stop you only using the long end. Very very hand holdable. Never use it with a monopod tripod (unlike the 500mm f4 I borrowed which I struggled to hand hold last week due to the weight, but destroyed anything I'd ever shot with IQ-wise)

A couple of examples of it (150-500) on your camera (7D). Not the best but hopefully a rough idea.


Eastern Bluebird by ACW#, on Flickr


White Breasted Nuthatch by ACW#, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the advice guys. Everyone seems to rate everything so I'm still undecided lol. Think I'll have to stick with the 100-400mm for now and see if I can try the others first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top