Zoom vs. Prime? Lens (1 Viewer)

[JohnZ]

I can`t contain myself any longer !
It is all there written down in the first sentence that Keith has quoted from Art Morris. "Though I still consider it the best lens in the world for photographing birds in flight" etc. He is talking about the Canon 400mm f5.6. If Art Morris thinks this then who am I to argue ?
Hello Alex how are you ? Long time no hear from you. Being nosey I had a quick look in your gallery and the shot of the Jay is very nice indeed. Still to get a half decent one myself.

 

[Roy C]

This is sort of where I came in - how can we just refer to "the" prime when there are three of them. The 400mm f/2.8 is almost four times as heavy as the 100-400 mm zoom.

Pedant, I know!!
o

Colin

We are comparing the 400mm f5.6 with the 100-400 zoom. It is obvious that the original poster forgot to say f5.6 he is saying 'zoom lens seems a little more expensive and has IS'

 

[Adey Baker]

Have you see that Warehouse Express have just knocked £201 off the price of the 400 f/2.8 (now down to £4,998). Since I already have the 500mm f/4 I am even more tempted by the 300mm f/2.8 (now £2,999) to use as a "walk around" (or should that be "struggle") lens with a 1.4x and/or 20x TC.

Totally irrelevant, I know!!


Colin

It's a general Canon price reduction on a few lenses - as well as the 300 and 400 F2.8 models, the 500mm F4 and the 400 F4 DO are reduced.

Not quite sure what that means - have they reduced production costs or are they clearing the shelves for more DO optics in which case they may have decided to do away with the 400mm F4.

There's all sorts of scenarios - to be honest (and I've made a similar comment on another thread somewhere), I don't think there's a big demand for the very largest lenses to be superceded by DO models just to make them more compact as they'll still have to quite sizeable lenses anyway. New buyers would be interested but with the reduction in price of, say, the 500mm F4 lens recently, what would be the trade-in price against a new DO model at about £5000+ for an existing owner - just to give you something you've already got anyway! There would have to be other new worthwhile features as well to make it viable.

 

[canonshooter4life]

I doubt canon will change either the 400 or 100-400 anytime soon, they are both selling very well for the price.

Well considering it is the only Telephoto prime without IS I think it needs an upgrade...

 

[postcardcv]

Well considering it is the only Telephoto prime without IS I think it needs an upgrade...

But I think that's one of the big advantages of it - it is a small, lightweight, relatively cheap L telephoto, this combination makes it very popular. Surely the addition of IS would significantly up both the weight and price.

 

[alexf]

But I think that's one of the big advantages of it - it is a small, lightweight, relatively cheap L telephoto, this combination makes it very popular. Surely the addition of IS would significantly up both the weight and price.

Exactly, it really doesn't need it, thats the best thing about it. I can carry it all day on camera, hand hold, pan and have very clear shots.

 

[Roy C]

But I think that's one of the big advantages of it - it is a small, lightweight, relatively cheap L telephoto, this combination makes it very popular. Surely the addition of IS would significantly up both the weight and price.

My sentiments as well. I guess it depends on your style of shooting but there are very few occasions when IS would be of any benifit to me as I am principally a walker who takes along a Camera and most of my shooting is in open land or water. As long as I can get 1/500 at ISO 400 (or even 800) I have no problems handholding this lens.

 

[Colin Key]

My sentiments as well. I guess it depends on your style of shooting but there are very few occasions when IS would be of any benifit to me as I am principally a walker who takes along a Camera and most of my shooting is in open land or water. As long as I can get 1/500 at ISO 400 (or even 800) I have no problems handholding this lens.

But I would have thought that these were exactly the conditions when IS would be of most use: hand-holding the camera to shoot a static subject in Mode 1, or tracking a flying bird in Mode 2.

However, I am not entirely disagreeing with you Roy; IS can be a very useful aid to getting excellent shots when you have learned how to use it (and that takes a LOT of practice), but it is not the magic solution to blurred or out of focus shots which some people imagine. Even hand-holding my 500mm f/4 I have obtained good photos with IS turned off.

Colin

 

[Roy C]

But I would have thought that these were exactly the conditions when IS would be of most use: hand-holding the camera to shoot a static subject in Mode 1, or tracking a flying bird in Mode 2.

However, I am not entirely disagreeing with you Roy; IS can be a very useful aid to getting excellent shots when you have learned how to use it (and that takes a LOT of practice), but it is not the magic solution to blurred or out of focus shots which some people imagine. Even hand-holding my 500mm f/4 I have obtained good photos with IS turned off.

Colin

Colin, my understanding of IS is that it is most usefull in low light to give a few stops advantage when hand holding - the point I was making is that I never shoot in low light conditions therefore my non IS lens is fine for me. Now if I was shooting in say, dark woods then that would be a different ball game. The vast majority of my shots are over open marshes and water and I can get speeds of 1/1000 - 1/2000 sec most of the time therefore I have no desire to get a IS lens. If I ever get to the situation where I cannot get sharp shots with my 400 f5.6 then I would consider getting a IS lens. Although I have only taken up photography for less than two years I do not consider myself I complete duffer and stand by my results. Please feel free to look at my gallery or website and tell me how cr**py my images are with the non IS lens.
Cheers
Roy

 

[Colin Key]

Colin, my understanding of IS is that it is most usefull in low light to give a few stops advantage when hand holding - the point I was making is that I never shoot in low light conditions therefore my non IS lens is fine for me. Now if I was shooting in say, dark woods then that would be a different ball game. The vast majority of my shots are over open marshes and water and I can get speeds of 1/1000 - 1/2000 sec most of the time therefore I have no desire to get a IS lens. If I ever get to the situation where I cannot get sharp shots with my 400 f5.6 then I would consider getting a IS lens. Although I have only taken up photography for less than two years I do not consider myself I complete duffer and stand by my results. Please feel free to look at my gallery or website and tell me how cr**py my images are with the non IS lens.
Cheers
Roy

Roy, I have looked at your gallery and website several times before and would never class your work as being at all cr**py.

It is possible to get excellent shots in good light with fast shutter speeds and without IS. However, I would say that if you have IS and have mastered how to use it to its full potential (which I haven't yet) then the excellent shots could become superb shots.

I met an English guy called Richard Crossley a few years ago in Portugal who was using a long lens, hand-held. It was this chance meeting which really got me into bird photography. He was extolling the merits of IS and said he couldn't do without it. He is a pro bird photographer now living in the USA and his work is very good, he has illustrated several field guides: http://www.crossleybirds.com/. His work is better than yours (without IS) and is better than mine (with IS), and I would have to agree with him that whatever one's level of proficiency and expertise, IS can give you "an edge".

It must be good, considering what it costs!!

Colin

 

[Quacker]

Well with any luck the canon will bring out a 400L at PMA with IS then the IS issue between the two lenses wont be the issue...

Assuming it is not just IS but a reduced minimum focus.

I am amazed at how many people out there have both lenses, perhaps they had the same problem in deciding one against the other. As far as i can see, have read etc. the IS and closer minimum focus as well as the variable focal lengths make the zoom a better choice - especially for hobby use.

 

[Keith Reeder]

To my mind, if we all agree that a "stable platform" makes for better images - whether that's a tripod, a bean bag, a fence post or really good hand-holding technique - then anything which adds to that stability must be of benefit.

We know that IS won't help with subject movement, but neither will a tripod, and nobody uses that an argument against the use of tripods...



In fact any argument that can be made in favour of a tripod applies equally - though to a lesser extent - to IS.

IS isn't a miracle cure (yeah, many people think it is, and are disappointed as a result), but it can make all the difference sometimes, and I wouldn't be without it.

I've lost count of the number of pictures I've taken where after I've downloaded them I've looked at the EXIF and been amazed by how low the shutter speed has been, yet I've still ended up with a usably sharp picture - like the attached at 1/60, which was taken on a day when I was being knocked all over the place by a strong wind.

YMMV as they say in the States, and many people work wonders without IS lenses - Psilo springs to mind.

But I don't get that many photographic opportunities because of routinely crappy light where I live and because of "real life" getting in the way, so I want every advantage I can get to maximise my opportunities.

IS is just such an advantage for me.

 

[Roy C]

As long as you are happy with your lens what does it matter what others may think. It appears that bird photography is much easier with a IS lens but the challenge is what I like about it - if it becomes to easy I for one would soon become bored. Even now I am becoming a little bored with static bird shots which is why I am taking more and more flight and action shots.

 

[Colin Key]

Yup Keith, your Starling certainly looks like it was taken at 1/60, hand-held, in poor light and a gale force wind - is that why it is such a crappy, blurred, out of focus, soft image? :-O

Colin

 

[birdman000]

Wow, it seems I've created quite a debate here.... but thank you all for the information. It sounds like both lens are really good and for the hobby photographer, it probably comes down to preference. I think for my girlfriend, the 100-400 zoom lens will be better. Since she is just starting with her dslr, I think the IS will come in handy and should help her out in the beginning.

 

[Colin Key]

Wow, it seems I've created quite a debate here.... but thank you all for the information. It sounds like both lens are really good and for the hobby photographer, it probably comes down to preference. I think for my girlfriend, the 100-400 zoom lens will be better. Since she is just starting with her dslr, I think the IS will come in handy and should help her out in the beginning.

Let us know how you get on, and post some photos.

Colin

 

[Ragna]

It's a general Canon price reduction on a few lenses - as well as the 300 and 400 F2.8 models, the 500mm F4 and the 400 F4 DO are reduced.

Not quite sure what that means - have they reduced production costs or are they clearing the shelves for more DO optics in which case they may have decided to do away with the 400mm F4.

There's all sorts of scenarios - to be honest (and I've made a similar comment on another thread somewhere), I don't think there's a big demand for the very largest lenses to be superceded by DO models just to make them more compact as they'll still have to quite sizeable lenses anyway. New buyers would be interested but with the reduction in price of, say, the 500mm F4 lens recently, what would be the trade-in price against a new DO model at about £5000+ for an existing owner - just to give you something you've already got anyway! There would have to be other new worthwhile features as well to make it viable.

Most dealers have increased the price of the 300 2.8,400 2.8 500 4 and 600 f4 lenses Park cameras price has gone from £4099 to £4499 in the last few wweeks. Warehouse express are like to follw other when they have sold there current stock.

 

[Keith Reeder]

Yeah, the 300mm f/2.8 has gone up by up to £300 in the last few weeks too - I was was quoted £3300 by LCE just four days ago, whereas it was available in lots of places for £2999 last month.

:h?:

 

[Keith Reeder]

Yup Keith, your Starling certainly looks like it was taken at 1/60, hand-held, in poor light and a gale force wind - is that why it is such a crappy, blurred, out of focus, soft image? :-O

Aye, I don't know what I was thinking there, Colin..!

 

[Ragna]

Keith best place for lens prices ive found is www.camerapricebuster.co.uk on there Tecno are £2868 for the 300 f2.8.I have on order a 500 f4 (the first one they sent had a fault There was a large hole in the side of the box and when opened some of the packaging was missing also the documentation had been opened this made me suspicious but the lens looked untouched but when i tested the lens itwas razor sharp at the bottom of the frame but soft at the top so i sent it back with a complaint) they have now quoted me up to 28 day for a replacement and as most others have either stuck up their prices or are also quoting up to 28 days iam having to wait.