100-400 (to go or not to go)? (1 Viewer)

DaveB · Apr 22, 2007

Following my recent purchase of the 300 F2.8 IS Prime, I am thinking of letting my trusty Canon 100 - 400 IS Zoom go to a new home to help fund a couple more purchases.

I need a lens that will do good macro shots (insects, butterflies, dragonflies, etc), but will also be versatile enough to allow me to take portraits and landscapes. Ideally, the lens will also be just the right size to fit in my pocket whilst walking about with the 300 + extenders.

I have done a bit of research and have my own thoughts, but would really like to get a few pointers from the people who know (before I commit to anything).

Probably been covered before, but any ideas will be much appreciated?

Thanks in advance,

DaveB

bobsofpa · Apr 25, 2007

Actually any (Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) of the 100mm Macros will fit your needs. All are extremely sharp. For the bugs you could use a 150/180mm Macro but then you lose the ability to carry it in a pocket. I use the 90mm Tamron Macro but the only reason I have this one as I was able to get it at a good price.

postcardcv · Apr 25, 2007

I'd agree with Bob, any of the current crop of ~100mm macros will do the job very well. I use the Sigm a105mm macro and really like it, though if I could have afforded it I'd have gone for the Canon as it has USM focus and full-time manual focus.

screaming piha · Apr 25, 2007

Keep your 100-400. You will not want to take your 300mm everywhere and you will be glad of a good, lighter lens at times. And if you can afford a 300 2.8 you can afford a couple of hundred for a secondhand macro soon enough to add to your kit.

postcardcv · Apr 25, 2007

jdj said:
Keep your 100-400. You will not want to take your 300mm everywhere and you will be glad of a good, lighter lens at times.

I was thinking about that too, I've just got a 100-400 as a walk about lens when I'm not carrying the 500 with me. I guess a cheaper 'macro' option would be to buy a set of extension tubes to use with your 300 f2.8.

DaveB · Apr 25, 2007

postcardcv said:
I was thinking about that too, I've just got a 100-400 as a walk about lens when I'm not carrying the 500 with me. I guess a cheaper 'macro' option would be to buy a set of extension tubes to use with your 300 f2.8.

I've been thinking about buying a set of tubes for a while now, but I think it might get a bit messy (ie, carrying tubes and converters) and quite a few people have told me to think twice about letting the 100 - 400 go, which is probably the right thing to do (simply a money thing).

I like thie idea of a smaller lens, so I can carry the 300 round my shoulder and then have the option to quickly disconnect the body and fit the small lens. Sounds good in theory, but will it work in practice, 'I guess I wont know until I try'?

Anyway, will a 105 macro (or similar) lens take good portraits / landscapes? I know what the macro does, but am unsure of the capabilities of this type of lens (outside of what it is designed for).

Thanks,

DaveB

Leicaman · Apr 25, 2007

DaveB said:
I've been thinking about buying a set of tubes for a while now, but I think it might get a bit messy (ie, carrying tubes and converters) and quite a few people have told me to think twice about letting the 100 - 400 go, which is probably the right thing to do (simply a money thing).

I like thie idea of a smaller lens, so I can carry the 300 round my shoulder and then have the option to quickly disconnect the body and fit the small lens. Sounds good in theory, but will it work in practice, 'I guess I wont know until I try'?

Anyway, will a 105 macro (or similar) lens take good portraits / landscapes? I know what the macro does, but am unsure of the capabilities of this type of lens (outside of what it is designed for).

Thanks,

DaveB

I use the Tamron 90mm both for macro and as a useful prime, medium telephoto with excellent results for more distant objects.

Tannin · Apr 26, 2007

I find the 60mm macro very useful indeed as an all-round lens for portraits, landscapes and (of course) small things. As an all-round mild telephoto lens, it's just about perfect. But then it's often a bit short for macro work.

Harold Stiver · Apr 27, 2007

May I ask you an ot question, Dave?

I am considering replacing my 100-400mm with a 300mm f/2.8. I use the 100-400 for long time handheld situations. For example, pelagic or day long tropical birding.

I find the 100-400 is not to heavy for carrying for hours at a time but I wonder if the extra weight of the 300mm would be a problem. I have no close dealers who stock it and can't do a test.

Any thoughts would be welcome. :h?:

DaveB · Apr 27, 2007

Harold Stiver said:
May I ask you an ot question, Dave?

I am considering replacing my 100-400mm with a 300mm f/2.8. I use the 100-400 for long time handheld situations. For example, pelagic or day long tropical birding.

I find the 100-400 is not to heavy for carrying for hours at a time but I wonder if the extra weight of the 300mm would be a problem. I have no close dealers who stock it and can't do a test.

Any thoughts would be welcome. :h?:

I haven't used the new lens to it's full potential yet, but what i have learn't is that you do notice the extra weight and size. Lens by itself is no problem, as is with a 1.4 converter (for a few minutes at a time). A tripod will arguably be needed for good images using a x2 converter (even after a few seconds, I need something to rest on (a wall, post or similar).

It's the size that is noticable and it is definately not as easy to grab the camera to take that quick shot, for example from the car window. I also miss the zoom and the better macro opportunity's that the 100 - 400 has to offer, but the increase in quality is definately worth losing those options.

I will hopefully decide on a smaller zoom / prime for macro, portraits and landscapes soon. Then I will decide on the fate of my trusty 100 - 400.

Hope this helps.

DaveB

Keith Reeder · Apr 28, 2007

Dave, sorry for the slight hijack, but do you have any decent-sized (800px) examples from your 100-400 I can see?

I ask because until recently I was going to make the same leap to the 300mm f/2.8 + TCs for 600mm I can handhold, but since I started using a 1.4x Kenko TC on my own 100-400 I'm so happy with the IQ and reach (560mm that I can easily handhold) that I've "almost" lost interest in the 300mm (well, until the light goes to hell again anyway!)

Is the IQ improvement you're getting at 420/600mm that significant over the 100-400mm? I know it probably should be, but my recent experiences have made me wonder if in pure IQ terms this lens upgrade will be that big an improvement for me...

DaveB · Apr 28, 2007

Keith Reeder said:
Dave, sorry for the slight hijack, but do you have any decent-sized (800px) examples from your 100-400 I can see?

I ask because until recently I was going to make the same leap to the 300mm f/2.8 + TCs for 600mm I can handhold, but since I started using a 1.4x Kenko TC on my own 100-400 I'm so happy with the IQ and reach (560mm that I can easily handhold) that I've "almost" lost interest in the 300mm (well, until the light goes to hell again anyway!)

Is the IQ improvement you're getting at 420/600mm that significant over the 100-400mm? I know it probably should be, but my recent experiences have made me wonder if in pure IQ terms this lens upgrade will be that big an improvement for me...

Keith,

Here are a couple of images taken with the 100 - 400 zoom. Both were taken at approximately 8 - 10 foot at the full range of the zoom in moderate light. Both have also been cropped to size and sharpened up a little.

DaveB

DaveB · Apr 28, 2007

Here are a couple of recent images taken with the 300 (+ 1.4 converter), 'hand held'. Distance was approximately 20 - 25 foot. Both images cropped to size and the lapwing has been sharpened slightly.

I've still to try this lens seriously, but early indications look good. Can't wait to get a decent tripod/monopod/beanbag.

DaveB

Keith Reeder · Apr 29, 2007

Thanks Dave - the 300mm + 1.4x pictures do look good.

Mind you, your 100-400mm shots aren't too shabby either...

DaveB · Apr 29, 2007

Keith Reeder said:
Thanks Dave - the 300mm + 1.4x pictures do look good.

Mind you, your 100-400mm shots aren't too shabby either...

I am finding that generally, I am getting more distance with slightly better results (hand held) from the 300 + 1.4. The 100 - 400 is great when the light is there and the pictures it produces are every bit as good as the 300 + 1.4. I have a feeling that I may regret letting the lens go, so i think i'll keep hold of it for the timebeing. Still need that smaller lens though (a better strap, monopod / tripod and a new rucksack)!

I would ask yourself if spending that sort of money justifies the need for slightly extra reach and quality. I know that if I had to pay full UK prices, the purchase would not have taken place and I would have got a new camera and a couple of smaller lenses intead.

I'm about to have a break and go to blackbanks and tunstall. Then back to this Computer Law that I am studying :-(

DaveB

Andrew B. · May 8, 2007

DaveB said:
Following my recent purchase of the 300 F2.8 IS Prime, I am thinking of letting my trusty Canon 100 - 400 IS Zoom go to a new home to help fund a couple more purchases.

I need a lens that will do good macro shots (insects, butterflies, dragonflies, etc), but will also be versatile enough to allow me to take portraits and landscapes. Ideally, the lens will also be just the right size to fit in my pocket whilst walking about with the 300 + extenders.

Thanks in advance,

DaveB

Here's my low-budget but high quality suggestion: get a Canon 500D 77mm close-up lens to go on the end of your 100-400 zoom. I got mine from a Hong Kong eBayer for not much money. This will get you proper macro magnifications AT A GOOD WORKING DISTANCE (about 15 inches at 400mm). This is what you want for insects, since you will have a harder time sticking the lens really close to them without them moving. The IS means that you will even be able to handhold the shots, if you are careful and the light is OK.

And for portraits, get a Canon 50 f/1.8, which is cheap as chips (well £70) and excellent quality, as well as being a good focal length for portraits on a crop body. The AF is a bit noisy and if you drop it onto a floor it will break... but the image quality is good.

A small disclaimer: I'm a bit of a newbie at macro photography although I have been a serious amateur photographer for 28 years (since I was 11).

Here is one of the first photos I took with the 100-400IS and 500D combination. It's a small flower...

Andrew

Keith Reeder · May 9, 2007

That fairly pops, Andrew - and sharp!

Dave, if your studies take you into Data Protection legislation territory, feel free to gimme a shout if you need a second opinion...

DaveB · May 14, 2007

Andrew B. said:
Here's my low-budget but high quality suggestion: get a Canon 500D 77mm close-up lens to go on the end of your 100-400 zoom. I got mine from a Hong Kong eBayer for not much money. This will get you proper macro magnifications AT A GOOD WORKING DISTANCE (about 15 inches at 400mm). This is what you want for insects, since you will have a harder time sticking the lens really close to them without them moving. The IS means that you will even be able to handhold the shots, if you are careful and the light is OK.

And for portraits, get a Canon 50 f/1.8, which is cheap as chips (well £70) and excellent quality, as well as being a good focal length for portraits on a crop body. The AF is a bit noisy and if you drop it onto a floor it will break... but the image quality is good.

A small disclaimer: I'm a bit of a newbie at macro photography although I have been a serious amateur photographer for 28 years (since I was 11).

Here is one of the first photos I took with the 100-400IS and 500D combination. It's a small flower...

Andrew

Andrew,

Many thanks for te advice. I was thinking about using tubes for the 100 - 400, but did not consider the 500d. A quick look at prices are £94 from Amazon and (wait for it), £157 from Jessops.

I know I can get it cheaper and looking at your example, it could be an option for the future. For now, good reviews for the Canon 60mm Macro F2.8 has pointed me to purchasing this lens for £239. It hasn't arrived yet so I can't comment.

Thanks again,

DaveB

DaveB · May 14, 2007

Keith Reeder said:
That fairly pops, Andrew - and sharp!

Dave, if your studies take you into Data Protection legislation territory, feel free to gimme a shout if you need a second opinion...

Keith,

I had to put the Law on hold while I completed a database and prepared for todays observation. The database and a teaching observation have both been completed so once I get tonights imaging assignments done, I will be ready to crack on with not only the Law, but also Visual Basic.

Typical that all this work has come at a time when I should be out and about :-C.

Loads of Criminal Law done, but still need to do a bit of work on Data Protection. I know about both, but the trouble is putting it on paper in the way they want it.

Two - three weeks it will all be done.

Thanks,

DaveB

DaveB · May 25, 2007

DaveB said:
Andrew,

Many thanks for te advice. I was thinking about using tubes for the 100 - 400, but did not consider the 500d. A quick look at prices are £94 from Amazon and (wait for it), £157 from Jessops.

I know I can get it cheaper and looking at your example, it could be an option for the future. For now, good reviews for the Canon 60mm Macro F2.8 has pointed me to purchasing this lens for £239. It hasn't arrived yet so I can't comment.

Thanks again,

DaveB

The 60mm Macro failed to arrive in the time that was promised so i ended up cancelling the order and bought a set of Jessops extension tubes instead.

Had a quick go with these this afternoon. Images taken with the 100 - 400 and 21mm tube are attached.

Thanks for all input,

DaveB

100-400 (to go or not to go)? (1 Viewer)

birding.daveb.co.uk

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Well-known member

Super Moderator

birding.daveb.co.uk

Well-known member

Common; sedentary.

Well-known member

birding.daveb.co.uk

Watch the birdie...

birding.daveb.co.uk

Attachments

birding.daveb.co.uk

Attachments

Watch the birdie...

birding.daveb.co.uk

New member

Attachments

Watch the birdie...

birding.daveb.co.uk

birding.daveb.co.uk

birding.daveb.co.uk

Attachments

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread