-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
another 10d question :) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter peteh
- Start date
I used to use the 100 - 400 IS with my D30 (sold the body) and found it great, particularly since it behaved like a longer lens. I think it does that with the 10d also. Pictures were sharp, but autofocus was less than perfect with birds in shubbery. But I don't know of any setup that can guess which item in that confusing pile of stuff is the one you want to focus on. So I ended up switching to manual focus quite often.
Geoff Brown
Well-known member
Can't resist this Petee,
You only get negatives with print film!
You only get negatives with print film!
I think it's a wonderful lens. My only complains are:
1) Wish it was lighter (But that is said about any long focal length lens.)
2) Could be sharper. It is very good, but not great. Of course, for the amount of money I'd have to pay for "great", I think I'll stick with "very good". (NOTE: From what I understand, the 400mm DO lens is the same quality as the 400 @400. So that isn't an option! And I want to gain a stop when I upgrade, so I won't use the 400 f5.6.)
3) Quality control. I got a good one, but I've read about others who's pictures a much softer. It happens often enough, and from people that I trust that I believe it's quality control and not just bad technique.
4) Cost. $1,499 USD is a lot of money.
5) The push/pull zoom is annoying, but if you get used to using the locking clutch you get used to it (i.e. it removes zoom creep.)
Art Thorn,
I wanted to double check. Are you blaming the 100-400 for "autofocus was less than perfect with birds in shubbery". The only way this could happen is if the 100-400 caused less contrast in the image that was used by the AF system. I guess that is possible. Are you saying that compared to a lens with the same USM motor system in it, it focuses slower or less precise? (note, you can't tell the speed of the lens just by having USM, I believe there are 3 or 4 different USM systems still in production.) That would be very interesting if it were true! What lens(es) are you comparing it too?
Eric
1) Wish it was lighter (But that is said about any long focal length lens.)
2) Could be sharper. It is very good, but not great. Of course, for the amount of money I'd have to pay for "great", I think I'll stick with "very good". (NOTE: From what I understand, the 400mm DO lens is the same quality as the 400 @400. So that isn't an option! And I want to gain a stop when I upgrade, so I won't use the 400 f5.6.)
3) Quality control. I got a good one, but I've read about others who's pictures a much softer. It happens often enough, and from people that I trust that I believe it's quality control and not just bad technique.
4) Cost. $1,499 USD is a lot of money.
5) The push/pull zoom is annoying, but if you get used to using the locking clutch you get used to it (i.e. it removes zoom creep.)
Art Thorn,
I wanted to double check. Are you blaming the 100-400 for "autofocus was less than perfect with birds in shubbery". The only way this could happen is if the 100-400 caused less contrast in the image that was used by the AF system. I guess that is possible. Are you saying that compared to a lens with the same USM motor system in it, it focuses slower or less precise? (note, you can't tell the speed of the lens just by having USM, I believe there are 3 or 4 different USM systems still in production.) That would be very interesting if it were true! What lens(es) are you comparing it too?
Eric
