Upgrading from 100-400mm IS (1 Viewer)

Ingo · Jul 28, 2007

Hi,

I am currently using a 100-400 mm IS lens for a couple of years with a Canon 20D, exclusively handheld, and have learned my fair bit about the limits of the setup. In particular pictures at 400mm in low light at 5.6 tend to be quite soft.

I was wondering over possibilities to upgrade, and since I do not want to give up on handheld photography I can see two possibilities

1) 400 mm DO IS f4
2) 300 mm f2.8 IS with 1.4x

What is the better option for handheld photography, and is the upgrade worth the considerable amount of cash involved? Are there any other suggestions?

Thanks for advice,
Ingo

GYRob · Jul 28, 2007

the 300f2.8 really is one of canons top lenses, utra sharp and fast af works great with the 1.4 and even with the 2x the iq is superv it will not dissapoint.
i dont have the DO .
Rob.

IanF · Jul 28, 2007

I don't have either lens but I've been hankering after one with a longer focal length. The 300mm f2,8 has caught my eye a few times as an alternative to the 500mm primes. It's image quality is impressive and seems unaffected whether used with 1.4x or 2x converters.

It's still a heavy lens to carry around and to hand hold for long. Despite having IS I think I'd be more inclined to use it with monopod or tripod espcially with cnverters attached.

I'm not so sure the 400mm DO is so much of an upgrade over the 100-400mm as all you'd be gaining is a faster lens.

Roy C · Jul 28, 2007

I am thinking of a similar upgrade from my 400mm f5.6. The one I would go for is the 300mm f2.8 although I would probably use with a monpod most of the time. Trouble is the 300 is twice the weight of my 400 and although a lot of users say they have no problems carrying the lens I am stil a little doubtful that I would be able to carry it for long periods. The older I get, the heavier my 400 f.6 seems to get, went out this morning for three hours and was pretty knackered at the finish.
If you are not bothered about the weight 'Ingo' I would go for the 300 2.8. I have read hundreds of reviews on this lens and everyone agree's it is a cracking lens, quite probably the sharpest that Canon have made.

JCL · Jul 30, 2007

I have the 400 DO IS USM f4 and rate it very highly. It is perfectly handholdable, so I use it thus for flight shots [e.g. http://www.pbase.com/james_lowen/image/71989010] and for birds on the deck when good light means a fast shutter speed [see http://www.pbase.com/james_lowen/image/72931105]), but - for longer periods - think it is best on a tripod/monopod.

I disagree with Ian F that it would not be much step up from the 100-400; the DO is in a different class.

I can't compare it to the 300, as I have no personal experience of that lens, but note that you get considerably more reach with the 400. I use my 400 with the 1.4x TC on almost all the time - so its focal length will stay ahead of the 300 unless you use the 2x (which, with the Canon TC at least, probably won't be as sharp).

Ingo · Jul 30, 2007

Thanks for comments so far.

@James: Nice pix! What happens at opening 5.6? Still pinsharp? I can put a 1.4x on my 100-400mm, but need at least 11 to really get a satisfying image (so I essentially gave up on that, although there are some impressive shots possible with that setup, too).

eastwood · Jul 31, 2007

I have the 100-400 and I am still using it. Then I bought the 300 f2.8 with extending the range in mind. It is absolutely a superb lens. When I need the reach, I add on the 2X. When I need a little more speed, I use the 1.4. Strange enough, if I stack on the two converters, my XTi only reads the 2X. So it will say 600 f5.6 instead of 840 f8, and it still retains Autofocus! The image then is a bit soft and s tripod is really helpful. It also tends to hunt more as the actual amount of light entering is less.
I have considered the DO, but compare with otherL tele lens, it is relatively pricy. However it is more portable and I believe the quality should also live up to the L label. Hopefully the price will come down a bit when Canon produces more DO lenses to recover their initial laid out for the development of this new technology. Right now I will (and have to) stick to my 300 F2.8, with my 100-400 as a walk around lens when I am tired to carry the 7 lb stuff.

nigelblake · Jul 31, 2007

Having tested the 400mm DO and 100-400mm IS side by side I don't think that the DO is a big leap in quality, certainly not 2.8 grands worth of difference.
Whereas the 300mm 2.8 is sharp enough to make your eyes bleed, even with the 1.4X on.

Roy C · Jul 31, 2007

nigelblake said:
Having tested the 400mm DO and 100-400mm IS side by side I don't think that the DO is a big leap in quality, certainly not 2.8 grands worth of difference.
Whereas the 300mm 2.8 is sharp enough to make your eyes bleed, even with the 1.4X on.

Nigel, how do you find the 300mm 2.8 with a 2x on ? How would it compare with my 400mm f5.6 bare lens for IQ. I have seen some shots of Andy B's that were excellent with a 2x.

Andy Bright · Jul 31, 2007

Roy C said:
Nigel, how do you find the 300mm 2.8 with a 2x on ? How would it compare with my 400mm f5.6 bare lens for IQ. I have seen some shots of Andy B's that were excellent with a 2x.

Sorry to leap in, but I feel the IQ with a 300/2.8 + 2x doesn't quite match something like a Sigma 500/4.5 ... even the Sigma + good 1.4x just nudges the 300+2x imho. The 2x can produce the goods, don't get me wrong, but there's still a big difference between a 1.4x and a 2x in terms of impact on I.Q.

Can't speak about the 400/5.6 as I've never used one.

cheers,
Andy

JCL · Jul 31, 2007

Ingo said:
Thanks for comments so far.

@James: Nice pix! What happens at opening 5.6? Still pinsharp? I can put a 1.4x on my 100-400mm, but need at least 11 to really get a satisfying image (so I essentially gave up on that, although there are some impressive shots possible with that setup, too).

It's still pinsharp at f5.6, yes.

There's a BF Canon thread somewhere [can't find it] that suggests, in the photographer's experience at least, there's no difference in sharpness between the 400DO and the 500 f4.

Roy C · Jul 31, 2007

Andy Bright said:
Sorry to leap in, but I feel the IQ with a 300/2.8 + 2x doesn't quite match something like a Sigma 500/4.5 ... even the Sigma + good 1.4x just nudges the 300+2x imho. The 2x can produce the goods, don't get me wrong, but there's still a big difference between a 1.4x and a 2x in terms of impact on I.Q.

Can't speak about the 400/5.6 as I've never used one.

cheers,
Andy

Thanks for that Andy - I guess if the 300 2.8 and 2x was as good as some people make out then we would not see so many people lugging around heavyweight 500 and 600's.
There is no easy way to 600mm without a heavy lens.

Andy Bright · Jul 31, 2007

Roy C said:
Thanks for that Andy - I guess if the 300 2.8 and 2x was as good as some people make out then we would not see so many people lugging around heavyweight 500 and 600's.
There is no easy way to 600mm without a heavy lens.

Yep, the 300/2.8 + 2x is still the bee's knees as a walkabout with long reach... but I'd still like Canon to bring in an equivilant to Nikon's TC-17E 1.7x, that'd be excellent :t:

cheers,
Andy

graham catley · Jul 31, 2007

Roy
if you want to have a look at my blog http://pewit.blogspot.com/ all of the latest Blackwits, Buff-breasts and Dartford Warblers were taken with the 300 2.8 and 2x hand held most of the time; the Monty juvs were a ridiculous distance away but there is still some detail in the wing pattern (I am not suggesting the photos are good just what the gear can do at very long range if you want a record); the first set of Marsh Harrier juvs as you scroll down were taken with just the 300 2.8 and later batches with the 300 2.8 and 1.4x; th elower of the perched juv Marsh Harriers was taken with the 300 2.8 + 1.4x and 2x stacked, not perfect by any means but not bad

Roy C · Aug 1, 2007

graham catley said:
Roy
if you want to have a look at my blog http://pewit.blogspot.com/ all of the latest Blackwits, Buff-breasts and Dartford Warblers were taken with the 300 2.8 and 2x hand held most of the time; the Monty juvs were a ridiculous distance away but there is still some detail in the wing pattern (I am not suggesting the photos are good just what the gear can do at very long range if you want a record); the first set of Marsh Harrier juvs as you scroll down were taken with just the 300 2.8 and later batches with the 300 2.8 and 1.4x; th elower of the perched juv Marsh Harriers was taken with the 300 2.8 + 1.4x and 2x stacked, not perfect by any means but not bad

Thanks for that Graham - some nice shot there, very impressive.
I like the Blog in general.

Marise · Aug 2, 2007

I have both the 400DO + the 100-400. The DO and 1.4TC live on the camera all the time. In perfect conditions there is probably not that much in the quality between the two- but the DO can manage low light a lot better and is certainly faster. Having read the thread begun by Keith Reeder on the Kenko 1.4TC I bought one for my 100-400 which I tend to take on non- birding hols ( but you never know - there may be an opportunity! ) I tried stacking the Canon and Kenko converters together and what do you know the AF worked! Not saying it was perfect and it was a little slow but it certainly worked. I never use a tripod and find the DO perfect for handholding even with the TC. I think one either likes to use a tripod or one doesn't - I don't, and anyway I can usually find something for support. I really have been delighted with the DO it really lends itself to the way I enjoy taking pictures.

vkalia · Aug 5, 2007

Ingo said:
I am currently using a 100-400 mm IS lens for a couple of years with a Canon 20D, exclusively handheld, and have learned my fair bit about the limits of the setup. In particular pictures at 400mm in low light at 5.6 tend to be quite soft.

I am surprised - that isnt the case with my lens. I am attaching a shot taken after the sun had set, taken wide open. In low light, make sure you give the AF and IS combo a second or so to settle down - that may help your sharpness.

1) 400 mm DO IS f4
2) 300 mm f2.8 IS with 1.4x

What is the better option for handheld photography, and is the upgrade worth the considerable amount of cash involved? Are there any other suggestions?

The 400/4 DO has received mixed reviews optically - it trades off some IQ for reduced weight. Certainly, it has never been on my list of contenders. However, I dont have experience with it, so you may want to give more weight to the recommendations from the folks that actually have it.

As for the others: the 300/2.8 isnt exactly a contender for handhold shooting - not for me, at any rate: it is too heavy. Note that being able to take a few shots handheld doesnt qualify a lens for handheld photography - I've taken a couple of handheld shots with my 500/4 + 2x TC, but there is no way that is a handholdable lens.

Another issue that you are going to face is that most of the other high-quality lenses that you could consider - EF 400/5.6, Sigma 120-300/2.8 (a *brilliant* lens, IMO) and the 500/4.5 - all lack IS. Given that your intended usage is low-light, image shake will more than ruin whatever moderate image gains you get in image quality.

If you can shoot braced on a beanbag or off a tripod, I'd suggest the Sigma 120-300/2.8 or Sigma 500/4.5 - excellent, sharp lenses and reasonably fast AF.

If you are going to shoot handheld - there really isnt anything better than the 100-400. I have it, and while I am itching to get the 120-300, lack of IS keeps holding me back.

Vandit

Ingo · Aug 5, 2007

Vandit, thanks for your input. Unfortunately, I cannot see any attachment.

Anyway, it is not that I get only really bad photos at 5.6, often I just don't get the detail I had expected at reasonable exposure times. Letting Af and Is settle down might sometimes have been a problem, I doubt it is the main reason.

vkalia · Aug 5, 2007

Whoops, sorry, forgot the attachment.

Am having a hard time posting it, so here's a link instea:
http://www.photosafariindia.com/galleries/tigers/page016.html

I've had a few instances of the image not being sharp, but usually it is related to image shake at slow shutter speeds. IS and shake arent binary states - in a sequence of events shot at the limit of my handholding, most of them will be sharp but only a few will be critically sharp.

Still, I do not mean to dissuade you from your search. If you do settle on something, please do post your thoughts on it here. I'm looking for a different and more optimal mix of faster aperture, handholdability and IQ myself; so I'd be keen on seeing how your upgrade path works out.

Vandit

Keith Reeder · Aug 5, 2007

Wow!

Beautiful, Vandit!

Upgrading from 100-400mm IS (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Occasional bird snapper

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

don't re member

Occasional bird snapper

Administrator

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Administrator

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Well-known member

Robin stroker

Well-known member

Robin stroker

Watch the birdie...

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread