EF 100-400 or EF 300

[Michael Hogan]

I am buying a EOS 40D and I want to get a walk around lens that I can take bird photos with. I am also buying (next year) a EF 500 f4 for tripod use. I am torn between the EF 300 f4 and the EF 100-400 f4-5.6. Both a L series and have IS and both work with a 1.4x TC. The extra 100 reach of the 100-400 would be useful but it does get some mixed reivew. I have not read a bad review of the 300 f4.

Some help would be greatly appreciated

Michael

[GYRob]

You wont get AF with the 100/400 unless you tape the pin's
as for walk about the zoom must be the best choice .
Rob.

[K-Lex]

This topic is elsewhere too. The 100-400 isn't really an L lens. It's good, but not worthy of the L badge. Without hesitation I'd buy the 300mm f4 and a 1.4x TC. Like you correctly say there are mixed views on the 100-400 but I've never, ever seen anything bad about the 300 f4. The 100-400 is slow and dim-witted by comparison. The difference in my opinion is the 100-400 is overrated and undertalented. The 300mm is underrated and an unsung gem.

[gkrpepper]

Michael, I got a 40D and 100-400mm a couple of weeks ago. I've been using a 350D and 300mm f4 with a 1.4 TC for the past 6 months.

The 100-400mm seems slow and not as sharp compared to the 300mm and 1.4 TC, especially in low light. (Sorry, Keith Reeder)

The 100-400mm and pin taped TC combination will work, but will hunt for longer than you have time when you're out shooting birds, unless you're pre focused and on a tripod, so that's no good for walking around.

In my opinion, and I am no expert, far from it, but I would go with the 300mm f4 and 1.4 TC giving you 420mm focal length, sharp glass, pretty fast lens, and hardly any weight to lug around.

The 40D is a no brainer, especially for the money.

Now, if you're really bend on using a 100-400 with a 1.4 TC, go with the 30D (ask Keith Reeder)

Like I said, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it

Hope it helps

[websurfer]

Comparing galleries: - I prefer Keith´s gallery (EF 100-400mm) compared to most of the galleries of EF 300 f/4 IS owners.

[JohnZ]

I too prefer Keiths gallery and think that he has produced some excellent shots with his non L 100-400. (sic) If only I could match these then I would be a very happy man !
Perhaps, K-Lex, the weather is a touch bad where you are and you are bored ? You then decided to wind a few people up on the Forum ?
OR you could always post a few images to prove your point as I see you have no images in your BF gallery.

Edit ; My apologies K-Lex just seen your gallery at keithwylie.co.uk. Didn`t find any piccies of birds ?

[postcardcv]

The 100-400 isn't really an L lens. It's good, but not worthy of the L badge.

That's the second time today I've read this statement (from you) any chance you could back it up with some evidence?

[russ1610]

The very amateur view, I have a 30d and 100-400L, it's white so must be classed as an L by Canon. I do most of my photos hand held very occasionally use a mono pod, but, I find that a pain to carry round. The camera and lens are very manageable on their own and the fact that it is a zoom is a big benefit to me.
Not all birds, insects and mammals, stand the same distance away and the zoom helps in those circumstances. As for faults, yes I believe a 300 may be sharper, faster and better in low light, but if you can't get near enough loss of 100mm or the subject is too close, over framed at 300 you cant get the photo anyway, where I can.
Are my photo's good with the lens. Only average after what you see on here from the likes of 'Keith Reeder' but I have some printed at A4 and friends don't believe i took them until I show them on the computer in my files. I will be getting a 1.4 converter next year, non canon probably kenko pro3000 and expect further problems but I am sure the equipment will still be better than me and that I will still be very happy to have a zoom and not a fixed lens.

[paul goode]

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=96461&page=2

Read post#40.

[K-Lex]

That's the second time today I've read this statement (from you) any chance you could back it up with some evidence?

Quite why, JohnZ, you think I'm trying to wind people up is beyond me. All I have done is express my opinion, which I am perfectly entitled to. I don't normally shoot birds, I'm a studio/glamour photographer by trade with a second interest in landscape and I have only recently had a dabbling in birds which is why there aren't any birds on my website. The only one of mind I uploaded is my avatar on here.

Postcardcv, It's my opinion not an extensive scientific study which is why the only evidence I need is my experience with both lenses. I'm not forcing anyone to take what I think as gospel, they can make their own minds up.

[stevo]

My opinion only but if your getting the 500 f4 next year then personally I would opt for the 300 f4 why you ask well nothing against the 100-400mm IS but you could add the 1.4x tc to the 300mm & you will effectively have 3 lenses & possibly the 300mm would be a lighter walkabout lens.Just my thoughts.

Steve.

[JohnZ]

Well it would be wouldn`t it. Nobody, in their right mind, would deny you the right to express your opinion. However if you choose to visit this Forum and then declare that the 100-400 is not really an L lens then you should expect some fairly sharp replies.
Yes people will make their own minds up and, I suspect, that one look at Keiths gallery may sway them towards the 100-400, L or not.

[paul goode]

Well I've got the 500mm f4is and the 100-400 so here comes a biased opinion.
I think this setup works well, I've used the zoom for all sorts of photography at everything from 100mm - 560mm and have been more than happy with the results. My shots with the tc on aren't a patch on Keith's but I still got decent shots from long birding walks I wouldn't otherwise have got.

The af isn't lightning fast, but with the range limit set its fast enough virtually all the time, and should be noticeably quicker than your old Tamron.

IQ, no complaints at all

Using a tc on a 40d could be a problem. The pin taping trick seems a bit hit and miss. There are other threads going into detail on this, so I'd have a good read of them.

I did consider the 300 f4 but felt the flexibility of the zoom outweighed the possible benefits of a 300mm prime and nothing has altered that opinion in the year I've had the zoom

Paul

Edit: I've just knocked together a quick gallery of shots with the 100-400, so if you're really bored go here http://www.pbase.com/pauls_20d/canon_100-400is_sample_images

Edit II: Should have said, all shots handheld, first thing I did with mine was to take the tripod mount off and chuck it in the back of a drawer. Its a doddle to handhold!

[Michael Hogan]

Nothing like full blooded debate. But I am no nearer a decision than before. I have just switched from Nikon - in fact I haven't picked up my EOS 40D yet. I havd a Nikon D80 + 300 f4. I really like the 300 - so sharp and nice to hand hold. Before that I had a Tamron 200-500 but sold it as I was not that happy with the results - that was probably down to me rather than the kit but I get so much better results with the 300 + 1.4x Kenko 300 pro than the Tamron. I had decided to get the Canon EF 300 f4 but then I looked at the 100-400 and hence the thread. I am a bit worried about it because of my experience with the Tamron but I know they are miles apart in IQ.

So has the decision been made any easier - you must be joking, but thanks for all the advise.

Michael

[websurfer]

Well I've got the 500mm f4is and the 100-400 so here comes a biased opinion.
I think this setup works well, I've used the zoom for all sorts of photography at everything from 100mm - 560mm and have been more than happy with the results. My shots with the tc on aren't a patch on Keith's but I still got decent shots from long birding walks I wouldn't otherwise have got.

The af isn't lightning fast, but with the range limit set its fast enough virtually all the time, and should be noticeably quicker than your old Tamron.

IQ, no complaints at all

Using a tc on a 40d could be a problem. The pin taping trick seems a bit hit and miss. There are other threads going into detail on this, so I'd have a good read of them.

I did consider the 300 f4 but felt the flexibility of the zoom outweighed the possible benefits of a 300mm prime and nothing has altered that opinion in the year I've had the zoom

Paul

Edit: I've just knocked together a quick gallery of shots with the 100-400, so if you're really bored go here http://www.pbase.com/pauls_20d/canon_100-400is_sample_images

Edit II: Should have said, all shots handheld, first thing I did with mine was to take the tripod mount off and chuck it in the back of a drawer. Its a doddle to handhold!

About your EF 100-400 Gallery: Some stunning shots, great work. Well done. I am really impressed. I wish I could get such a good copy and have your skill.

[postcardcv]

Quite why, JohnZ, you think I'm trying to wind people up is beyond me. All I have done is express my opinion, which I am perfectly entitled to. I don't normally shoot birds, I'm a studio/glamour photographer by trade with a second interest in landscape and I have only recently had a dabbling in birds which is why there aren't any birds on my website. The only one of mind I uploaded is my avatar on here.

Postcardcv, It's my opinion not an extensive scientific study which is why the only evidence I need is my experience with both lenses. I'm not forcing anyone to take what I think as gospel, they can make their own minds up.

I never said that you were trying to wind people up, I was just trying to work out where you got your information about the 100-400 was not being a real L lens (I'd guess Canon would disagree). The way you stated in this (and another) thread made it sound like a fact so I was curious as to where you got it from. Perhaps you could elaborate and explain what it is that the 100-400 IS lacks that all other L lenses have?

[tracker]

Hello Michael,

Only for the fact that you may be getting the Canon 500mm next year, I'd have suggested you consider the Canon 400mm f/5.6 ( the lens I use for bird photography) A beautiful lens to use, very sharp wide open. Having said that, the 300mm f/4 may give you a bit more flexibility in range (coupling it with the 1.4tc) along with the 500mm in your collection.

If birds arent going to be your main subject, then the Canon 100-400mm may be more suited.

Whatever your choice, I'm sure you'll be aware, that personal technique is what makes any of this equipment do the business.

All the best in your decision :t:

[a.dancy]

115083

115084

Here are a couple of black redstart shots taken with my 100-400 and demonstrating the lens working well against the light . I carry this lens to work with me every day (although not used every day) and would not want to change it.


The peregrine (below, full frame) was flying at around 40-50mph I would guess. The lens was fast enough at focusing IMHO. I use a 500mm prime lens when spending the day out photographing birds and often bring the 100-400 even though I have the option of a 300f2.8. Sometimes I leave the 500 at home and take the 100-400 instead. I am a bog standard amateur bird photographer but will second the comments made by Nigel Blake and others. It seems to me that poor results come about with the 100-400 owing to a too higher expectation being placed on it especially in regard to image stabilisation. If I produce a bad image I blame myself and not the lens. With respect I would not place any value on the opinion of someone who has had very little practice with the 100-400 since I do believe that it does take practise to optimise the results. This of course is just my opinion....I have been using the lens for about 4 years.

[a.dancy]

One late afternoon after doing a load of shots with the 500 I did a load with the zoom pulled in...why go for full frame shots every time? I took the attached sparrowhawk shot at about 180mm ISO800 at about 1/125 sec.hand held (slightly cropped no adjustment to levels or colour)

Given the choice of the 300f.4 or the 100-400 it would be the good old zoom nearly everytime without question.

[Tim Taylor]

Wow, some great shots from the 100-400 here. For some more modest shots with the same lens you can look at mine too - same lens but a less skilful operator! It very rarely gets used at less than 400mm but I found myself shooting my son's rugby match the other day and the zoom was varied a lot then. Makes it much more compact for travelling too of course. I also use it with a monopod in some situations - eg standing still for 30 mins snapping birds near my garden feeders.

[a.dancy]

Now now Tim you are a fine operator and a better one that me and with more experience too! 8-PI just cannot get over people saying that the 100-400 is crap or in anyway substandard. Most of my 100-400 shots are handheld. :frog:

[gkrpepper]

While I agree with most about the 100-400mm being a bang up lens and all, I did say to ME it SEEMS slower and less sharp than my 300mmf4 and 1.4 TC.

Since I have a 40D and a 350D, and neither supports the 100-400mm w/TC PROPERLY, not even with the pins taped, I consider them to be equal in focal length, and that is what I based my opinion on, and again, to ME the 300mm w/TC is faster and sharper. TO ME

BTW A. D and Paul, Super Galleries!!!!

[erwinx]

Comparing galleries: - I prefer Keith´s gallery (EF 100-400mm) compared to most of the galleries of EF 300 f/4 IS owners.

heres yet another previous thread and my comments on the 300 v 100-400:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=929912&postcount=22

and also note my comment that you can't really tell anything about lens quality from web-sized images. But if you want reviews, there's Bob Atkins from photo.net:

"I found that the EF300/4L + 1.4x TC also outperformed the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS USM at 400mm "

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/300-4.html

[websurfer]

heres yet another previous thread and my comments on the 300 v 100-400:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=929912&postcount=22

and also note my comment that you can't really tell anything about lens quality from web-sized images. But if you want reviews, there's Bob Atkins from photo.net:



http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/300-4.html

I have been reading a lot of stuff from Bob Atkins on his website, and I rember that he admitted, that his tested copy of the EF 100-400 was a bad one or sub-standard copy. Link (http://www.bobatkins.com/forums/index.php?forum=1&topic=313) - and I still prefer Keiths and Pauls galleries (EF 100-400mm) in this Forum compared to most EF 300 f/4IS +TC galleries.

[a.dancy]

I generally do not get involved much with discussions regarding which is best... 100-400 v 400 prime or 400 v 300 (with or without converters) and the various other combinations and variables which may exist e.g. full frame sensor cameras, cropped sensor cameras, dedicated converters and non dedicated converters. These, I am sure can have an affect on performance and image quality. I am no expert at the technology and far from an expert when using the equipment! However, it does seem to me that the evidence is out there. I have seen sufficient large size prints of images taken using the 100-400 (even wide open) to know that the lens is more than sharp enough to achieve the 'wow' factor and I wonder if we worry too much about sharpness at the pixel level.

As for speed of focus (with 100-400) I wonder if when most photographers are doing flight shots do they turn IS off in order to achieve quicker and better tracking? I am guilty of occasionally leaving it on then kicking myself for it, especially when the shutter speeds obtained do not call for it. However the evidence is out there and you will find large size prints of fast flying birds taken with the 100-400. For this reason alone I think that one would be most unwise to suggest that the 100-400 is in any way substandard since the 'hard' evidence suggests otherwise.

Different lens are designed to suit different situations as well as the pocket so when considering which lens you are going to buy you must consider the distances of the birds you photograph, the light availability for the environment you shoot in for most of the time, whether or not you wish to use a tripod or other form of support or shoot hand held and also consider whether you wish to use a hide. Be realistic about your expectations and check out what others have achieved in the same sorts of locations and situations that you will be in and make comparisons, then make your decision.

In the right hands both the lenses will produce superb results...it is as simple as that.

What I do not like about the 100-400 is the lens hood....it is utter crap but does have the advantage of keeping the weight down.

AD

[gmax]

LOL .. good old debate ... |:D| ... What I don't understand is why whenever someone dares (rightly or wrongly, there's no difference in terms of reaction) to say something "not" absolutely positive about the zoom (and its combinations) he is immediately and politely shot down ... the same doesn't happen with any other lens, Canon or Nikon or Sigma etc, where pros and cons are more or less objectively laid down and discussed ... it seems to me that any (less than positive) hint to this lens is getting on somebody's nerves sooner or later :-O... mysteries of bird photography ... ;) ;)

Cheers,

Max

[GR Triever]

This link will do nothing as far as proving or disproving either side of this debate, but I did find it interesting:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=411757

[K-Lex]

LOL .. good old debate ... |:D| ... What I don't understand is why whenever someone dares (rightly or wrongly, there's no difference in terms of reaction) to say something "not" absolutely positive about the zoom (and its combinations) he is immediately and politely shot down ... the same doesn't happen with any other lens, Canon or Nikon or Sigma etc, where pros and cons are more or less objectively laid down and discussed ... it seems to me that any (less than positive) hint to this lens is getting on somebody's nerves sooner or later :-O... mysteries of bird photography ... ;) ;)

Cheers,

Max


Hehe! So what have we solved in this thread? Very little in terms of which one is best by the looks of it! We have learned I don't like the zoom and that I'm pretty much out on my own with that opinion and the zoom has a steady following of people. I can't argue with that, I should try but years of relationships and losing arguments have taught me better! a.dancy has hit the nail on the head, what matters is the photographer not the lens. If I may quote one of my inspirations over the years Annabel Williams, "get a camera that suits you, a lens you love; forget about everything else and go and take pictures".

[erwinx]

I have been reading a lot of stuff from Bob Atkins on his website, and I rember that he admitted, that his tested copy of the EF 100-400 was a bad one or sub-standard copy. Link (http://www.bobatkins.com/forums/index.php?forum=1&topic=313) - and I still prefer Keiths and Pauls galleries (EF 100-400mm) in this Forum compared to most EF 300 f/4IS +TC galleries.

Thanks for the link. I note that photozone also complained about varying quality in different samples of the 100-400.

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm

Again, I reiterate that preference for web-sized images has little correlation to lens performance. I am sure that you will also prefer the above 100-400 galleries to some galleries where a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 was used, which is praise for the photographer but doesn't lead me to conclude that 100-400 is better than 500 or 600 f/4.

[websurfer]

Thanks for the link. I note that photozone also complained about varying quality in different samples of the 100-400.

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm

Again, I reiterate that preference for web-sized images has little correlation to lens performance. I am sure that you will also prefer the above 100-400 galleries to some galleries where a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 was used, which is praise for the photographer but doesn't lead me to conclude that 100-400 is better than 500 or 600 f/4.

I agree - the result mostly depends on the photographer - and I haven´t made any conclusions about which lens is better - I can only tell you which galleries I find great. And I did find it a bit provoking to claim, that the EF 100-400 doesn´t deserve the red L-ring.
I still haven´t bought any wildlife lens myself, I am saving up. My only main concern about the EF 100-400mm is to get a sub-standard copy because of mixed reports as you mention.

[a.dancy]

LOL .. good old debate ... |:D| ... What I don't understand is why whenever someone dares (rightly or wrongly, there's no difference in terms of reaction) to say something "not" absolutely positive about the zoom (and its combinations) he is immediately and politely shot down ... the same doesn't happen with any other lens, Canon or Nikon or Sigma etc, where pros and cons are more or less objectively laid down and discussed ... it seems to me that any (less than positive) hint to this lens is getting on somebody's nerves sooner or later :-O... mysteries of bird photography ... ;) ;)

Cheers,

Max

LMAO.....certainly has me banjaxed! I guess it's one of those love it or hate it things.


K-LEX...wish I had your knowledge of history Annabelle Williams seems to have got it spot on.

websurfer....I can only say that if goods bought in the UK are not fit for purpose or do not live up to the standards advertised or if there has been a misrepresentation then consumer rights law would have (by now) exposed any real problems with the lens and accordingly canon would have had to act on it. That as far as I am aware has not been the case. I dare say that any lens which is as popular as the 100-400 will have the odd lens come out of the factory as being substandard having escaped the rigours of quality control. This applies to any consumer product not just 100-400 zooms. It is just a fact of the real world.

I might also add, that last year I pulled my lens out of the bag thinking the strap was still around my neck. I lost grip and the camera and lens took a big hit with the concrete pavement.The lens took the intial impact, it bounced and the camera took the lesser hit. When I picked it up I immediately took a shot and everything worked and the lens remained unmarked. It is a tough old beast.

There is nearly always a practical solution to any problem. Tell them your concerns. If you buy from a store see if you can test the lens outside, or hire one and buy it if suitable. I am sure you can find a way to overcome the problem.

Good luck with your choice and good luck with your purchase.

[CCRII]

LOL .. good old debate ... |:D| ... What I don't understand is why whenever someone dares (rightly or wrongly, there's no difference in terms of reaction) to say something "not" absolutely positive about the zoom (and its combinations) he is immediately and politely shot down ... the same doesn't happen with any other lens, Canon or Nikon or Sigma etc, where pros and cons are more or less objectively laid down and discussed ... it seems to me that any (less than positive) hint to this lens is getting on somebody's nerves sooner or later :-O... mysteries of bird photography ... ;) ;)

Cheers,

Max

I think because the zoom is the ultimate Amateur Intermediate lens and all the other lenses stink! J/K! :-O

Actually I have noticed this too. Weird. **Shrugs Shoulders**

[Modular]

I'm still not sure what to get and been Watching this Thread on the Hope It would
Make up My Mind ... I know I want the 400mm End ... That's for sure and "IS" sound's
Nice to have ... But I'm leaning More Toward's the 400mm Prime now and going with just
the "L" instead of "L" and "IS" ...
I do notice more 100-400's for Sale than You do a 400mm Prime ... I've also noticed that many 100-400 user's Do a Lot of Post Processing aswell ... I thought Nikon user's
did this more as they have to? ... I'd guess the Prime is better sealed too?,
Many Question's lol,
Take Care All,
John,

[websurfer]

I'm still not sure what to get and been Watching this Thread on the Hope It would
Make up My Mind ... I know I want the 400mm End ... That's for sure and "IS" sound's
Nice to have ... But I'm leaning More Toward's the 400mm Prime now and going with just
the "L" instead of "L" and "IS" ...
I do notice more 100-400's for Sale than You do a 400mm Prime ... I've also noticed that many 100-400 user's Do a Lot of Post Processing aswell ... I thought Nikon user's
did this more as they have to? ... I'd guess the Prime is better sealed too?,
Many Question's lol,
Take Care All,
John,

I understand your interest in the 400mm prime.Have a look at the Gallery of gmax. A marvellous collection of high quality pics. I have been tempted to buy the EF 400 f/5.6 - but I am afraid that I am not as skilful as gmax, and I am afraid I can´t do good enough without IS. I really don´t know. Damn good pics from this lens. I think its very difficult to judge which lens is better based on pics in here cos there are so many good photographers in this forum, and I just feel that most of them can get good shots from any lens :) - but Good luck with your choice.

[JohnZ]

K-Lex, We seem to have decided that a lot of people on here are firmly on the side of the 100-400. I personally am not an advocate of this particular lens and use the 400mm prime lens. However, at the risk of repetition, one cannot argue with the results some people, like Keith, get with this lens. The results are little short of excellent in my opinion.
Max, I think that we may use the same lens, the Canon 400mm f5.6. I have had a few discussions with Keith on here regarding the relative merits of both lenses. There is no doubt in my mind that the prime is a better value for money lens. It is tack sharp, wide open, in the right hands, and very very fast in the AF department. However one look at Keiths gallery will also demonstrate that similar, if not better, results can be had using the 100-400.
To quote somebody on another forum "You will have to prise my 400mm prime lens from my cold dead fingers !"

[a.dancy]

I do not wish to knock any one or their lens of choice. As I said it is horses for courses.

There are probably more zooms than primes on the 2nd hand market because there have been a lot more made. Perhaps the buying public just keeps buying rubbish?


Zoom users do more post processing...... I'm not sure I agree with that one ?????, but in any event, so what? There are those who use 500 and 600 primes and do a lot of post processing....I'd do it if I knew how and had the time and the software! If you can improve an image what is wrong with it....provided of course that you do not diminish the integrity of the shot, but I digress. Please take a look at the sparrowhawk shot above....hand held at a low shutter speed about 1/125th sec. I took shots covering the full zoom range and every one or nearly every one was sharp and I might add no adjustment with levels and sharpening was minimal and probably not even necessary. I have on the few occasions that I have tried got sharp shots between 1/25th sec and 1/60th sec hand held (on a calm day of course) and I have posted these shots elsewhere. The point I make is that you can go on taking pictures with the zoom when others might have to go home ...unless they use a tripod of course.


I am going to be a bit self indulgent but only to nail home the point I am making.I will post a few more sparrowhawk shots (fledged juvenile). The eye level shots were taken with me standing on tip-toes! The light had completely gone. I shot most I think on ISO1600 (check the EXIF data) with very low shutter speeds at the 400 end of the zoom. I have NOT sharpened the shots and I have NOT carried out any post processing with levels, saturation , blur, or neat image. All I have done is downsize the full frame shots and stuck on a boarder. I hope you take a look and make fair comment. My only caveat is as stated before, I am a bog standard amateur who does on average a full days shoot about once a month and gets the odd shot in in the mean time.

The shots in the sequence which are missing are due to subject blur (moving head)

[Modular]

Zoom users do more post processing...... I'm not sure I agree with that one ?????, but in any event, so what? There are those who use 500 and 600 primes and do a lot of post processing....I'd do it if I knew how and had the time and the software!

So What? ... Well in Honesty if Zoom user's have to Sharpen more than
Prime user's then I think I know So what ... The Prime is Evidently Sharper!,

So All I'm saying is ... IF Zoom user's HAVE to Sharpen more than PRIME
user's ... Then the Answer is pretty clear to Me ... That's what I was
Saying ... And Your Probably right about user's buying Rubbish :t:

The Picture's are Nice ... A Few Underexposed etc but You said the Light was Awful anyway ... The First 2 Are
800 Iso and the Other 3 are 1600 Iso ... They don't Look Sharp as You have'nt Sharpened as Yet,
Like You say ... Picture's won't Prove anything ... I know what the 100-400 Can Do ... In the Right Hand's and
In the Right Software,
I agree also that the "IS" Helped with HandHolding Shot's ... That's what appeal's to Me,
I did'nt say ALL 100-400 User's use Software either ... I said Many ... And Many Do ;) ,
Take Care,
John,

[Roy C]

I think that Brits have an inherent love of zoom lenses. When I am out walking with my 400mm f5.6 slung around my neck I almost always get one of two comments, either 'thats a big camera you have' or 'thats a big zoom'. When I explain that it is not a zoom most people are completely perplexed and come back with something like 'oh I thought it must be a zoom if you are photographing birds' :-O:-O:-O . Perhaps this proves that the zoom must be best ;););)

[Tim Taylor]

I think that Brits have an inherent love of zoom lenses. When I am out walking with my 400mm f5.6 slung around my neck I almost always get one of two comments, either 'thats a big camera you have' or 'thats a big zoom'. When I explain that it is not a zoom most people are completely perplexed and come back with something like 'oh I thought it must be a zoom if you are photographing birds' :-O:-O:-O . Perhaps this proves that the zoom must be best ;););)
Well done Roy, you've nailed it. Here's (http://www.wildimaging.co.uk/about.htm) a shot my sister took of some bloke out birding with a big zoom the other day - good looking chap too. 3:-)

Apologies to Michael the thread poster - not helpful in your decision making. The only real negative I've encountered with the zoom is the insect that seems to have got in somehow and about which I'm about to ring Canon. I'd love to have a go with the 300mm IS + 1.4TC combo.

[citrinella]

I think that Brits have an inherent love of zoom lenses. When I am out walking with my 400mm f5.6 slung around my neck I almost always get one of two comments, either 'thats a big camera you have' or 'thats a big zoom'. When I explain that it is not a zoom most people are completely perplexed and come back with something like 'oh I thought it must be a zoom if you are photographing birds' :-O:-O:-O . Perhaps this proves that the zoom must be best ;););)

To Joe Public "zoom" means telephoto. They have no idea of the distinction between prime and zoom. As for "wide angle zoom" - are you speaking Martian ?

Mike.

[gmax]

There are probably more zooms than primes on the 2nd hand market because there have been a lot more made.

Exactly!

The point I make is that you can go on taking pictures with the zoom when others might have to go home ...unless they use a tripod of course.

Quite exactly! That's the bonus of IS, so other primes' users may still go on taking pictures ;) now, who said "I'm selling my 500mm f/4 IS for 1000£"?

I am a bog standard amateur who does on average a full days shoot about once a month and gets the odd shot in in the mean time.

Well well Adrian, can't you hear the whole Forum laughing? Bog standard?! Please ...

[paul goode]

Quite exactly! That's the bonus of IS, so other primes' users may still go on taking pictures ;) now, who said "I'm selling my 500mm f/4 IS for 1000£"?

Now THERE IS a lens you will have to prise from my cold dead fingers!! :t:

[postcardcv]

Quite exactly! That's the bonus of IS, so other primes' users may still go on taking pictures ;) now, who said "I'm selling my 500mm f/4 IS for 1000£"?

Now THERE IS a lens you will have to prise from my cold dead fingers!! :t:

absolutely... in the few months I've used mine I've been continually amazed at the detail it captures, what a great lump of glass.

As for the question of 100-400 vs 300 f4 +1.4x tc (vs 400 f5.6), a quick glance in the gallery will show great shots from all three. Find the one that suits and enjoy using it.

[K-Lex]

Now THERE IS a lens you will have to prise from my cold dead fingers!! :t:

Could get a whole new thread out of this:

What lens would one have to prise out of your cold, dead fingers?

Haha 3:-)

BTW I'd be clutching my 70-200 2.8 IS L for the record!

[gkrpepper]

Until I learn how to use the 100-400mm, it will be the 300mm f4 with the 1.4 TC attached

[a.dancy]

So What? ... Well in Honesty if Zoom user's have to Sharpen more than
Prime user's then I think I know So what ... The Prime is Evidently Sharper!,

So All I'm saying is ... IF Zoom user's HAVE to Sharpen more than PRIME
user's ... Then the Answer is pretty clear to Me ... That's what I was
Saying ... And Your Probably right about user's buying Rubbish :t:

The Picture's are Nice ... A Few Underexposed etc but You said the Light was Awful anyway ... The First 2 Are
800 Iso and the Other 3 are 1600 Iso ... They don't Look Sharp as You have'nt Sharpened as Yet,
Like You say ... Picture's won't Prove anything ... I know what the 100-400 Can Do ... In the Right Hand's and
In the Right Software,
I agree also that the "IS" Helped with HandHolding Shot's ... That's what appeal's to Me,
I did'nt say ALL 100-400 User's use Software either ... I said Many ... And Many Do ;) ,
Take Care,
John,


I am not trying to convert people to the 100-400 above all options. I am trying to dispell what I consider to be prejudice regarding the 100-400 zoom and assist with people making a balanced decision in buying what is after all expensive equipment. I understand what you are saying and I have looked at the galleries and elsewhere. I am not prepared to agree that more sharpening is necessary with the zoom. In my view, it is too much of a sweeping statement to say that those using zooms do more sharpening or post production work. What people do is a matter of choice and I have seen evidence of oversharpening with 400 primes to the point that birds have icicles on them! and I am not referring to penquins3:-). However the photographers are probably going through a learning process just as those with 100-400 zooms.

I do not in all honesty think that there is very much between the lenses in terms of their performance. I would even agree that there may be a minimal sharpness benefit regarding the prime 300 and 400 (without converters). It is simply my view that too much emphasis is placed on a minimal increase in sharpness. There is so much more to a lens than just sharpness and so much more to good photography than getting razor sharp pics. I have tested the 400 prime on several occasions and I cannot in all honesty say that the difference is worth the shout. What is more important, in my humble opinion, is that the type of lens you get is suited to your needs. This vastly exceeds the benefit of minimal extra sharpness.

Regarding my pictures ...please recall the pictures shot at 1600 were shot with me standing on tiptoe with very low shutter speeds (aiming the lens through a glass window). The pictures are a bit dark (being unprocessed) but a look at the histograms will show that the perameters of exposure are OK and within the limits for any lens. If I had shot in Raw then I am sure the results would have been better. The birds were in very low light, in a garden within a 5 storey quadrangle so in reality to reflect what was seen you would see a dark picture. Please remember also that when downsizing, image sharpness reduces. I do not operate with in camera sharpening so sharpening would be inevitable no matter what lens is used (although in fairness I think you conceed that point). I can guarantee that the original full file size images are sharper than they appear above. Note also that my in camera contrast is turned down which has the effect of reducing perceptible sharpness.

I have attempted to show what the 100- 400 can do in extreme conditions. I have not gone for the glorious best light shots. I have shown a range of shots which can be achieved by someone with my limited experience which could not be done with anything other than a zoom lens with IS when handheld.

Finally addressing the issue of sharpness. Of course we all like to see sharp pics. The acid test (for me) is layng down a decent size print image (say A4) with minimal or no crop. If that is your goal you will realise that when you view such a picture from a normal viewing distance the difference in sharpnes is not percieved...the human eye cannot resolve the fine detail of a pixel or two worth of sharpness in a print. If I am wrong perhaps someone will say so.

To answer the main question of this thread: should it be the prime 300 (with or without converters) or the 100-400 zoom? I can only say there is little between them but in poorer light converters in my view perform less well. Go to my first post when I mentioned the considerations you should make generally. Given that you are going to get a 500 prime I do not think you need consider the 400 prime as an option (brilliant as this lens is) since what you need is a bit of variation in focal length under 500 or 400 as the case may be.

I can only offer my opinion based on my experience and If I am wrong , I aplogise.

[postcardcv]

I am not trying to convert people to the 100-400 above all options. I am trying to dispell what I consider to be prejudice regarding the 100-400 zoom and assist with people making a balanced decision in buying what is after all expensive equipment. I understand what you are saying and I have looked at the galleries and elsewhere. I am not prepared to agree that more sharpening is necessary with the zoom. In my view, it is too much of a sweeping statement to say that those using zooms do more sharpening or post production work. What people do is a matter of choice and I have seen evidence of oversharpening with 400 primes to the point that birds have icicles on them! and I am not referring to penquins3:-). However the photographers are probably going through a learning process just as those with 100-400 zooms.

As the thread is deviating slightly...

I have owned both the 100-400 IS and the 400 f5.6 (but not the 300 f4 so can't really comment on that). If sharpness is the issue then there really is nothing in it between these two, I found both to be sharp enough even at f5.6. The bigger differences between them are handling, speed of focus, IS and of course the zoom factor.

Don't rule out the 400 f5.6 along side the 500 f4, this is the combination I'm currently using. The 400 f5.6 is a great travel lens and is also good to have over one shoulder for grabbing flight shots. It's not for everyone, but it's right for me!

[Tim Taylor]

Here's a 100% crop of a shot taken this morning with the 100-400 at 400mm, ISO 640, 1/60th and f6.3 handheld. It was shot RAW and converted to .dng and then .tif in Lightshop with no alterations made unless Lightroom does anything automatically. I then cropped it to 740 by 698 from the 3504 x 2336 pixel original and saved it as a .jpg in Photoshop hoping that BF software wouldn't alter it too much on upload. I don't know if that would be considered sharp or not for an unprocessed image. I was happy considering the high ISO and handholding a 400mm lens.

[YellowBudgie]

Hi All,

Would there be any good posts on BF or some web sites out there with some tips and advice on shooting with the Canon 100-400mm? I just started shooting with this lens with a Canon 40D and could use some advice / tips.

Would there be a book on the subject or a book that covers working with various Canon lenses?

I hate to just ask for tips or help if there's already some good posts here on BF. I did a few searches and didn't find too much by the topic names.

I do plan to read Keith Reeder's posts since he knows the lens very well and takes very impressive photos with the 100-400.

Thanks!

Dana

[a.dancy]

Don't rule out the 400 f5.6 along side the 500 f4, this is the combination I'm currently using. The 400 f5.6 is a great travel lens and is also good to have over one shoulder for grabbing flight shots. It's not for everyone, but it's right for me!

My apologies, I wrongly thought that the original question stated that the lens would be used for other matters such as photographing people, places , kids football matches etc. That is not the case and clearly I have confused this with another thread. So yes I think the 400 prime should be considered especially if you have two camera bodies. The 400 prime is a superb flight shot lens. I do however think that one is better served with the adaptability of a zoom. It allows for more creativity and enable one to work a subject more making ones portfolio a bit more interesting.


I note Mike is in Wicklow....just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons....you are going to have the benefit of all that coastal stuff and Great Saltee Island. That being the case I would have no hesitation in suggesting you consider a 70-200f2.8.IS That is what I wished I had when I was there! Bung on a 2x converter till you get your 500 lens.

[CCRII]

Hi All,

Would there be any good posts on BF or some web sites out there with some tips and advice on shooting with the Canon 100-400mm? I just started shooting with this lens with a Canon 40D and could use some advice / tips.

Would there be a book on the subject or a book that covers working with various Canon lenses?

I hate to just ask for tips or help if there's already some good posts here on BF. I did a few searches and didn't find too much by the topic names.

I do plan to read Keith Reeder's posts since he knows the lens very well and takes very impressive photos with the 100-400.

Thanks!

Dana

I think in my own experience I made huge strides thanks to the excellent members of this board. There was a lot of posting images and getting a lot of helpful problem solving and feedback. From my own experience, my photos doubled in intensity and sharpness just from a single simple setting. I have to admit I am a bit embarrassed by this, but then again I was and still am to an extent a complete noob. Anyway make sure that you have your center focus point selected. For some reason the default is the whole matrix of points and this causes the AF to continually focus between the background and your subject and everything in between resulting in slightly blurred to completely blurred photos.

Also some good books on bird photography in General are David Tiplings books and for exposure I really like Arthur Morris books.

You may even want to go through my posts asking for pointers they may be very helpful since I have a very similar setup.

HTH.

[YellowBudgie]

Thanks HTH,

I agree, Bird Forum has had the most helpful people I have ever known in a forum. I don't think I would have ever been motivated to start out with digiscoping without the advice I had read in posts and the help people have given me here.

I'm a noob as well with the DSLR. I've been digiscoping for about a year now and tend to try the same things that worked with the digiscoping setup. I'm used to a max zoom of about 2,500mm and now with the new Canon and 100-400mm my max is 640mm with the crop factor.

Getting closer will really help. I have a front yard feeder tree I like to shoot the birds at. I stay inside the small area before you enter the house and shoot from there. Looks like I'll have to brave the wind and sit still and move closer little by little to get some better shots. It's pretty cold here in the morning, 15 deg F.

I have some issues with my feet where I can't risk slipping on snow and ice with the camera. I'm thinking of trying to shoot from the car window with a beanbag. I've noticed birds don't seem to be concerned about parked cars until you step out. This may help me get close when there's a area I can drive to. I'll have to look into what type of places to look for. I've noticed some areas I may be able to park at that have a selection of berry bushes and small trees. These may be some good places to start. Maybe I can shoot our feeder tree from the care to get closer. That may work out.

Thanks for the book titles, I'll take a look on amazon. I could use a good book on exposure.

Thanks!

Dana

[YellowBudgie]

HTH,

Just incase you haven't been to Keith Reeder's web site, Capture The Moment, it's:
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/

There's great advice in his Articles section:
http://capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/articles/

Dana

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Interestingly I have the latest portfolio for wildlife photographer of the year and a number of the 'professionals' and winners are using the 100-400IS.

Cracking images in there, obviously.

[YellowBudgie]

Interestingly I have the latest portfolio for wildlife photographer of the year and a number of the 'professionals' and winners are using the 100-400IS.

Cracking images in there, obviously.

Hi Jimmy,

Thanks for the link.

This is a educated guess, perhaps some of the professionals who will be traveling and crossing terrain on foot prefer a light weight lens like the Canon 100-400mm.

Having a light weight lens I would think would be much easier to handhold to setup quick to shoot if an opportunity presented itself, it would be good for birds in flight, plus the less weight in gear to carry. It's zoom would be an advantage as well.

The pros are also the type of people who can get close in to the birds and get those great 'fuller' frame to full frame shots.

People have shown super photos can be shot with the 100-400mm so it's good to know it's possible with enough practice, reading, patience.

See ya,

Dana

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Hi Jimmy,

Thanks for the link.

This is a educated guess, perhaps some of the professionals who will be traveling and crossing terrain on foot prefer a light weight lens like the Canon 100-400mm.

Having a light weight lens I would think would be much easier to handhold to setup quick to shoot if an opportunity presented itself, it would be good for birds in flight, plus the less weight in gear to carry. It's zoom would be an advantage as well.

The pros are also the type of people who can get close in to the birds and get those great 'fuller' frame to full frame shots.

People have shown super photos can be shot with the 100-400mm so it's good to know it's possible with enough practice, reading, patience.

See ya,

Dana

Yeah - I think you're right. I personally have the lens and love it. I am (possibly naive) enough to believe that good pictures really needs co-operatitve birds, patience, good light and field craft primarily. Then if you have a good camera and lens all the better, but they are no compenstation for getting the first variables right!

I think it is worthy in this debate to also note that even if the pro's do use this as back up, it is noteworthy that they do. It's almost like saying this is the de rigeur travel lens for some pretty serious photographers, which is justifcation in some ways for having this as a lens! Given all the time and effort they must plave on pictures this is the one lens they can rely on to get a picture quickly. Perhaps the versaility shouldn't be overlooked?

I imagine if you are setting up a hide with a pool like some of the fantastic picutures in the gallery then the 300 may be better? That isn't where I am starting and given I oonly have one choice of a lens this is serving me well so far. I only wish it was sunny more often ;)

I am sure the debate will rage on! :t:

[CCRII]

Thanks HTH,

I agree, Bird Forum has had the most helpful people I have ever known in a forum. I don't think I would have ever been motivated to start out with digiscoping without the advice I had read in posts and the help people have given me here.

I'm a noob as well with the DSLR. I've been digiscoping for about a year now and tend to try the same things that worked with the digiscoping setup. I'm used to a max zoom of about 2,500mm and now with the new Canon and 100-400mm my max is 640mm with the crop factor.

Getting closer will really help. I have a front yard feeder tree I like to shoot the birds at. I stay inside the small area before you enter the house and shoot from there. Looks like I'll have to brave the wind and sit still and move closer little by little to get some better shots. It's pretty cold here in the morning, 15 deg F.

I have some issues with my feet where I can't risk slipping on snow and ice with the camera. I'm thinking of trying to shoot from the car window with a beanbag. I've noticed birds don't seem to be concerned about parked cars until you step out. This may help me get close when there's a area I can drive to. I'll have to look into what type of places to look for. I've noticed some areas I may be able to park at that have a selection of berry bushes and small trees. These may be some good places to start. Maybe I can shoot our feeder tree from the care to get closer. That may work out.

Thanks for the book titles, I'll take a look on amazon. I could use a good book on exposure.

Thanks!

Dana

Dana a word,

Crop factor does not add focal length it only widens the field of view. Just keep that in mind.

Yeah you have to get a lot closer to birds with the Telephoto which can be a challenge, but maybe I am a sick puppy but I quite enjoy the challenge. ;)

Also HTH is internet acronym for hope that helps sweet heart. ;)

[postcardcv]

Crop factor does not add focal length it only widens the field of view. Just keep that in mind.

surely it narrows the field of view... ;)

[CCRII]

surely it narrows the field of view... ;)

Yes that is what I meant. Bit of Dyslexia I'm afraid. :/

[YellowBudgie]

Dana a word,

Crop factor does not add focal length it only widens the field of view. Just keep that in mind.

Yeah you have to get a lot closer to birds with the Telephoto which can be a challenge, but maybe I am a sick puppy but I quite enjoy the challenge. ;)

Also HTH is internet acronym for hope that helps sweet heart. ;)

Opps, I thought that was your name.

I'm going to need to start doing the same, getting closer to the birds. Even shooting in our front yard I need to be closer. Sitting out there in 10 deg below 0 so the birds get used to my presence doesn't sound like too much fun. With this cold weather here in New England a portable hide sounds like a nice place to be inside while shooting, may help with the wind at least.

It would look odd to the neighbors with what looks to them like a army tent in the front yard with me going in and out every now and then. :) With what looks like a high powered rifle scope to some passers by. We have a main busy road near out front yard.

See ya,

Dana

[CCRII]

Opps, I thought that was your name.

I'm going to need to start doing the same, getting closer to the birds. Even shooting in our front yard I need to be closer. Sitting out there in 10 deg below 0 so the birds get used to my presence doesn't sound like too much fun. With this cold weather here in New England a portable hide sounds like a nice place to be inside while shooting, may help with the wind at least.

It would look odd to the neighbors with what looks to them like a army tent in the front yard with me going in and out every now and then. :) With what looks like a high powered rifle scope to some passers by. We have a main busy road near out front yard.

See ya,

Dana

Were not quite that cold here in Michigan but 27F with 30 mile per hour wind gusts feels like 20 below zero! Brrr! I tried to photograph some waterfowl at a local park and had to stop after about 20 minutes. My hands were frost bitten! Nice thing the gulls, ducks could care less about me. Too busy trying to stay warm.

[YellowBudgie]

Were not quite that cold here in Michigan but 27F with 30 mile per hour wind gusts feels like 20 below zero! Brrr! I tried to photograph some waterfowl at a local park and had to stop after about 20 minutes. My hands were frost bitten! Nice thing the gulls, ducks could care less about me. Too busy trying to stay warm.

Thats pretty cold! The wind chill really does make it unbearable just walking to your car on some days.

If you want to shoot out in the cold this may help... I found a way to keep my hands warm and operate the camera in the cold weather.

I picked up some hunting gloves. They have openings where the tips of your fingers stick out so you can operate the buttons on your camera. They also have these tiny "gripper dots", little rubber dots on the inside that gives you a good grip on your gear. They are nice and light. I place large HotHands warmers inside the gloves on the top of my hands. This keeps my hands warm enough where it's not bad to be out there in the cold.

I also place large HotHands warmers over my socks near the tips of my toes. These work good but in my boots the warmers don't get enough oxygen so after 30 minutes to an hour I need to take them out and shake them, they heat back up again.

If you try this you may want to get the smaller hand warmers first, they dont get so hot. These warmers when in direct contact to your skin isn't the best way to use them, they dry your skin out. I should find a small cloth pouch for them for the gloves.

They sell socks that come with little pouches to hold the smaller HotHands.

I just took some photos of the gloves and hothands package. See attached.

See ya,

Dana

[CCRII]

Thats pretty cold! The wind chill really does make it unbearable just walking to your car on some days.

If you want to shoot out in the cold this may help... I found a way to keep my hands warm and operate the camera in the cold weather.

I picked up some hunting gloves. They have openings where the tips of your fingers stick out so you can operate the buttons on your camera. They also have these tiny "gripper dots", little rubber dots on the inside that gives you a good grip on your gear. They are nice and light. I place large HotHands warmers inside the gloves on the top of my hands. This keeps my hands warm enough where it's not bad to be out there in the cold.

I also place large HotHands warmers over my socks near the tips of my toes. These work good but in my boots the warmers don't get enough oxygen so after 30 minutes to an hour I need to take them out and shake them, they heat back up again.

If you try this you may want to get the smaller hand warmers first, they dont get so hot. These warmers when in direct contact to your skin isn't the best way to use them, they dry your skin out. I should find a small cloth pouch for them for the gloves.

They sell socks that come with little pouches to hold the smaller HotHands.

I just took some photos of the gloves and hothands package. See attached.

See ya,

Dana

Yeah I have those, but my fingertips get frozen solid and the insulation on those gloves doesn't seem to stand up to windchill unfortunately. Lol! I have a huge box of those hand warmers too . ;)

[websurfer]

..... Without hesitation I'd buy the 300mm f4 and a 1.4x TC. Like you correctly say there are mixed views on the 100-400 but I've never, ever seen anything bad about the 300 f4......... The 300mm is underrated and an unsung gem.

I have to eat my word about the EF 300mm f/4 IS + 1.4X II Extender. I have been surfing on the net - and found this gallery (http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=31319)
Great pics from this combo.

Another link (http://www.pbase.com/johannes_tallroth/wild_birds) link2 (http://www.pbase.com/johannes_tallroth/image/65993127)


"You have an opinion until you change it"

[Jaff]

I am in an identical situation to Mike except he's about two steps ahead of me.

One thing about the 300mm f4 that I like is that idea of owning an f4 lens with IS, in darkened woodlands where light is at a premium I think it would really be an asset as reach can be compensated for by walking closer to the subject and birds tend to come quite close in woodlands anyway, at least in our's they do. I'd think I'd still prefer to own the 100-400 though as it's nice to have the ability to say "ooh 400's too much, I'll just bring it back to 300 or 200".

That's my meager input.
Jaff

EDIT: Sorry, one other thing I forgot to mention is that I think the turn-off for a lot of people on a 100-400 is the seemingly greater chance of ending up with a sub-standard copy.

[bombacilla]

Andy Rouse, recently posted this in a debate on the 100-400 on the WHE forum...

That 100-400 is great for most people, i don't like it but a lot of pros do and of course it is the lens of choice for amateur wildlife photographers. The only problem is the range, it is not really 400 but more like 370 and you can't use a converter of any kind and get good results. The 300 f4 is a cracking lens and everyone here knows my views on it as I have one and I used it for a lot of my gorilla work earlier this year. It takes the 1.4x well, although autofocus is slower and viewfinder darker. Also has the advantage of image compression being a fixed lens and diffuse background at f4, both vital for birds.

My view, get the 300 f4.

Followed on later in the thread with this....

That 100-400 is not really an L lens, whilst it says that it is most of us know that it is 95% of an L lens. Not helpful I know but as I have said before you can get good ones and bad ones, personally I will not use this lens and make do with a shorter one and a 1.4x

Just thought this might add some interest to the debate!

Cheers

Dave Sewell

_________________
Andy Rouse
Professional Wildlife Photographer

[Tim Taylor]

LOL, that'll stir it up again.

So is bombacilla Dave Sewell or Andy Rouse - a confusing signature below a signature?

[K-Lex]

So it seems I'm not the only one who thinks the 100-400 isn't worthy of the L badge. Hmm....

[Roy C]

Wow, here we go 3:-)

[Andy Bright]

LOL, that'll stir it up again.

So is bombacilla Dave Sewell or Andy Rouse - a confusing signature below a signature?

Andy has his own identity he posts with on BF, I suspect this is simply the result of cut & paste text

cheers,
Andy

[nick the grief]

Well all I can say is I'm more than happy with the results from my 100-400 ...... maybe I got a good'un :D:t: