-
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.
This qualifies as "interesting"... (400 zoom vs 400 prime) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Keith Reeder
- Start date
tracker
Tom
Modular
I'll leave this space empty
gmax
Sontium Dweller
Not much difference? With 150£ you can get another fine lens, e.g. a good 50mm for everyday use or you can just send them to me
PS From Mark's link (thanks, interesting reading), my preferred quotation:
"You can fret all you want about how sharp a given lens may be, but if your photographic technique isn't first rate, having a lens capable of producing high resolution and high contrast is hardly worth a damn."
:'D
gmax
Sontium Dweller
Thanks for getting things clearer than I managed to ..
Quoting from your link:
"For serious long lens work, even when working on a tripod, Canon's family of Image Stabilized "L" series lenses are worth their weight in gold (which partially explains their price)."
... How I wish it were not true (the price I mean :'D )
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
How do you rule out user error for the 100-400 pictures that aren't as sharp though?
I really reckon (based on the fact that I'm never lucky with what I buy - if it will break it will, and I've had bad examples of other kit, including several recent cameras) that the presence of IS causes people to assume that they don't have to have good hand-holding technique: they do, and not applying good technique overwhelms the IS ability of the lens.
But to balance the argument, just today I've looked at some pictures on BF taken with the prime on a tripod and a beanbag which I'd have deleted out of hand if I'd taken them with my kit.
So the idea that the prime is a "guarantee" of better pictures than the zoom is capable of, just doesn't wash... and I'll say again that sharpness isn't the whole story anyway.
Last edited:
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Not sure I follow you here John as the 400mm f5.6 prime is cheaper than the 100-400 zoom
Modular
I'll leave this space empty
Yeah your right Roy ... I did'nt realise that it was ... After checking and seeing good result's like i have ... It's One on my list for sure,
Cheer's Roy,
John,
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Keith, the big unknown with trying the see the lens quality via web pics is that you dont know how much the image as been cropped. A very heavily cropped pic of a bird that was say, 40 meters away will hardly ever be a good as one taken from 7 or 8 metres away with any long lens. My best shots have always been when I have been fairly close to the bird (which is very rare).
Also by the same token you must have seen loads of shots taken with the 100-400 that are so bad that you must have squirmed with embarrassment when they have been posted (I certainly have, but I would not blame it on the lens!)
gmax
Sontium Dweller
Attachments
This is one situation where the zoom offers a clear advantage as it allows you to alter the height of your table!
Also the stabilisation would help avoid spills!
Last edited:
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
Unfortunately the 70-200/2.8 doesn't change length when you zoom, great idea though - would the zoom twist lock on the 100-400 take the weight though...
...sorry...too geeky with my lens identification... :bounce:
Tannin
Common; sedentary.
I don't know if this is relevant here, but I'll chuck it in anyway.
There are shots I've taken with the 100-400 which stand up very well indeed to my prime (which is a 500/4). Not a great many, but a reasonable number. When everything is right, the zoom is as good as you could possibly want.
BUT if I look at the good shots I have which were taken when everything wasn't right - i.e., when the light wasn't what I'd really want, they are just about all taken with the prime.
This leads me to my own personal theory: that the zoom can be close enough to as good as the prime, but only when the light is really good. Once conditions deteriorate, all that extra glass takes its toll. I make the same comment about using teleconverters: you should only do it when you have light to burn.
Could this apply equally to the 100-400 vs 400/5.6 debate?
There are shots I've taken with the 100-400 which stand up very well indeed to my prime (which is a 500/4). Not a great many, but a reasonable number. When everything is right, the zoom is as good as you could possibly want.
BUT if I look at the good shots I have which were taken when everything wasn't right - i.e., when the light wasn't what I'd really want, they are just about all taken with the prime.
This leads me to my own personal theory: that the zoom can be close enough to as good as the prime, but only when the light is really good. Once conditions deteriorate, all that extra glass takes its toll. I make the same comment about using teleconverters: you should only do it when you have light to burn.
Could this apply equally to the 100-400 vs 400/5.6 debate?
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
Sorry Tannin, but this really is not relevant here - how does this tell me if the twist lock on the 100-400 zoom would be able to take the weight of a glass table with a bottle of wine and some glasses? Obviously the prime doesn't suffer this issue, although you don't have the advantage of height adjustment...
Also, having read so much interesting tripe on the interweb about varying quality of the 100-400, can I assume that some examples will and some won't take the weight or is it due to poor twist technique?
does this mean that my wobbly coffee table is actually an effect of my poor long lens technique, rather than the dodgy construction that I normally blame.
