• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

What's your kit look like vs. what you *want* it to look like (1 Viewer)

dlleno

Active member
you make a good point! now if Canon would just surprise us all and update the 12 year old 1-4, at least put the latest gen IS in there. Frankly I don't see the need to go faster. the existing size and weight is really quite good

I wonder if anyone has done image comparisons between:

1. 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with 1.4x
2. 100-400
 

cab1024

Well-known member
you make a good point! now if Canon would just surprise us all and update the 12 year old 1-4, at least put the latest gen IS in there. Frankly I don't see the need to go faster. the existing size and weight is really quite good

I wonder if anyone has done image comparisons between:

1. 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with 1.4x
2. 100-400

Ironically, I was up til 3am last night comparing my 100-400 to the 70-200 f/2.8 WITHOUT IS that I borrowed from a friend yesterday. OK, and without the 1.4x. And I was mainly comparing bokeh. (The buttery bokeh of the 2.8 is making me even more desirous of the 50mm f/1.4)

But one thing I learned immediately -- 12 years old or not -- I got very useable handheld shots in a dim living room at 400mm with the IS on, and got nothing steady from the 200 2.8 w/o IS. So, other than the 50mm, I doubt I'll ever choose the non-IS version of anything. I simply find myself in low light situations far too frequently to go without it. So more money will have to be saved for future purchases...

(I used a tripod for my primary comparisons, BTW.)
 
Last edited:

dlleno

Active member
amen on the IS. I got a lot of useful shots of wildlife near dusk and overcast conditions with the rented 100-400. Grizzly, Pelicans, etc. I agree 12 yrs old or not its a great lens. IS is the primary reason I went for the 17-55 instead of the 17-40 L.
 

cab1024

Well-known member
Also means I need to update my list from the OP. I'll need something f/2.8 or faster with IS, for low light hand-holding and bokeh.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top