Camera Freaks, this is your thread!

That sunset...isn't it moresound at a naked "worship the Behringer x32" ceremony (which is clearly a form of devil worship!).

Seriously, I've never seen that done to a sunset before...what a great idea extremely well executed!
 
Hey Ghost,

I am looking at getting a longer zoom and I was wondering if you have ever used the 100-400mm L 4.5 IS? I have toyed with the thought of getting that or the sigma 150-500mm or possibly a 300mm 2.8 and a 2x extender... The reach of the sigma is attractive but I am not sure would get me enough pixels on the subject to make up for any lack of sharpness as compared to the 100-400L.


F.S.
 
Freudian Slip said:
Hey Ghost,

I am looking at getting a longer zoom and I was wondering if you have ever used the 100-400mm L 4.5 IS? I have toyed with the thought of getting that or the sigma 150-500mm or possibly a 300mm 2.8 and a 2x extender... The reach of the sigma is attractive but I am not sure would get me enough pixels on the subject to make up for any lack of sharpness as compared to the 100-400L.

F.S.
Click to expand...
The longest Canon lens I've ever used was the EF70-200 f/2.8L IS with a EF2x II extender. And I rarely used it and ended up selling both. It was a bit soft with the extender.

From the sample images I've seen from the 100-400L, I'd have to say most of the samples looked pretty soft and not up to the L standards I was used to seeing from their primes. The Sigma seems to yield about the same sharpness but with poorer color and contrast pop. The 300 f/2.8L with a 1.4 extender might be the better way to go or the straight 400 f/4L on tripod.

What are you shooting that calls for those focal lengths?

Cheers! :)
 
Thanks Ghost.

I was looking at the straight 400mm as well. I would love the 300 2.8, but I just looked at prices and I am not likely going to be able to do that.

I shoot a lot of wildlife pictures, so I like having the zoom. I currently have a 70-300mm tamron apo, vc, etc. It is probably best in it's class and one hell of a lens for the price, but if you get down to less than 1/4 of the frame the pics don't hold up. The color is not that great either. I just bought a tokina 11-16 2.8 and it really made the poor color of the tamron stand out. The only problem that I have with the 400mm L is that I am doing birds in flight much of the time and I usually start at around 135mm or so, find my target and then zoom as I follow. I am sure I could get better at it, but right now I have a lot harder time finding my target if I start at 200-300mm. That and I am a hand held type of shooter when it comes to wildlife and having IS is a real asset to me.

Choices, choices! My other thought was to upgrade cameras to a 60d and get a better focusing system that I think would up my percentage of usable shots. I question how much it would help me though given that I usually use single point focusing because of the brush, trees, sticks that I tend to be shooting through.

Hmmmm. IDK

F.S.
 
Yeah, hand held birding is pretty tough to pull off even with top end gear so it's hard to make a meaningful suggestion. But here's something else to think about. The 100-400L is an old lens and way over due for an updated version which would no doubt net you better IS and sharper optics. So for that reason alone, I'd stay clear of the current version. Canon did introduce a new 70-300L with IS which seems to be very sharp and with the newest 4 stop IS system. It's not compatible with extenders but might still be a decent choice as it will yield really nice color, contrast and sharpness and with the newest IS, net you a better keeper rate. Maybe try renting one for a weekend to see if it's a good move for you?

Cheers! :)
 
Freudian Slip said:
Hey Ghost,

I am looking at getting a longer zoom and I was wondering if you have ever used the 100-400mm L 4.5 IS?


F.S.
Click to expand...
F.S.,

I have the Canon 100-400mm L 4.4 IS. At its price point it appeared to be a wise purchase at the time, but I did discover that it isn't compatible with the Canon 1.4x and 2x extenders that I own, which was a bummer. It's an OK lense at best IMO. I wish I could afford to purchase one of Canons' prime lenses....500mm or higher.
 
F.S.,

I'll look through my library of photos and try to post a few pics I have taken with the 100-400mm lense.
 
A picture from this morning if this works.

202259_3939263452546_517158064_o.jpg

F.S.
 
NIce! With the time exposure on the water, it looks photoshopped. I would say cut down on the time a little bit for some more definition in the water - but that's just me.
 
Thanks Ghost.

I am a huge fan of surreal ;) It's always a compromise. I masked in a shorter exposure just to look though and I think it's a bit better. I will try to put it up later and see which you guys think is better.

F.S.
 
kidkage said:
Hey, I've got another question :p

I'm looking into this:
Amazon.com: Canon EOS Rebel T2i 18 MP CMOS APS-C Sensor DIGIC 4 Image Processor Full-HD Movie Mode Digital SLR Camera and EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS UD Standard Zoom Lens: Camera & Photo

Not really sure what the differences between the lenses are though :confused:
Click to expand...

Lenses?

That offer comes with one lens; an 18-135mm zoom lens with image stabilization. The focal range should allow you to shoot everything from semi-wide landscape shots, to portraits, to weaker zoomed in sport and nature shooting. It is a budget lens though, so it won't offer the color, contrast and sharpness of Canon's higher L series lenses or give you the reach of longer zoom lens for shooting things like birds that are further away or athletes at the far end of the field. But its a good general purpose lens to get you started and wet your appetite for higher end lenses down the road, if you need them.

Cheers! :)
 
The diagonal size of the sensor on that camera is about 26.6mm so a "normal" lens would be that. This means that the 18-55 zoom goes from fairly wide angle to about a 2x telephoto--if you're used to 35mm cameras it would be roughly equivalent to a 28-100mm lens, i.e. a darn useful range. the 55-250mm would go from aabout a 2x to 10x telephoto (something like a 110-500mm (if they made such a thing) for a 35mm SLR.

FYI, I have an 18-55 and 55-200mm lens for my Nikon DSLR and they cover 99% of what I ever want to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top