| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/12/2011 07:30:29 PM · #26 |
Since you have the 70-200mm f/4 and x1.4 extender (slow focusing and perhaps a 'little' less sharp than the 100-400mm, I know), have you perhaps considered getting the 400mm f/5.6 instead? I'm not sure what you're wanting from the 100-400mm but I know a lot of people with telezooms will end up using them 90% of the time near their largest focal length anyway and the 400mm f/5.6 is an amazing lens. Absolutely tack sharp, speedy af, not especially heavy and cheaper than the 100-400mm...
Just my 2c :). |
|
|
|
12/12/2011 08:12:46 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Since you have the 70-200mm f/4 and x1.4 extender (slow focusing and perhaps a 'little' less sharp than the 100-400mm, I know), have you perhaps considered getting the 400mm f/5.6 instead? I'm not sure what you're wanting from the 100-400mm but I know a lot of people with telezooms will end up using them 90% of the time near their largest focal length anyway and the 400mm f/5.6 is an amazing lens. Absolutely tack sharp, speedy af, not especially heavy and cheaper than the 100-400mm...
Just my 2c :). |
I too second the 400 f5.6
Some of my best shots here, were taken with that lens! Check my profile.
Shot it at f5.6 all the time...
|
|
|
|
12/12/2011 08:37:44 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Since you have the 70-200mm f/4 and x1.4 extender (slow focusing and perhaps a 'little' less sharp than the 100-400mm, I know), have you perhaps considered getting the 400mm f/5.6 instead? I'm not sure what you're wanting from the 100-400mm but I know a lot of people with telezooms will end up using them 90% of the time near their largest focal length anyway and the 400mm f/5.6 is an amazing lens. Absolutely tack sharp, speedy af, not especially heavy and cheaper than the 100-400mm...
Just my 2c :). |
In that case, I'd be inclined to get the 300mm f/4 IS with a 1.4x TC. |
|
|
|
12/12/2011 09:17:53 PM · #29 |
| I guess it depends what Maria wants this for. 300mm f/4 IS is more versatile but the 400mm is by far the best choice for wildlife I think, with the extra 100mm and faster af. Once you put an extender on the 300mm there's barely any point using af, mf is probably quicker and if you're shooting birds etc. you'll be wanting a high shutter speed anyway so no point in IS. I guess perhaps for sports the 300mm with its IS could be the better option, but then for sports I'd probably end up back at the 100-400mm (or more likely the 70-200mm) since having a zoom then is useful. |
|
|
|
12/13/2011 12:38:15 AM · #30 |
Yes, looking at sports so thinking the 100-400 would best suit this.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2011 12:46:18 AM · #31 |
| Yes, I agree. Having shot the Ducks with both the 100-400 and a 300 prime, I'd take the 100-400 almost every time. It isn't as much for the 300-400mm portion, but rather the 100-300 portion. |
|
|
|
12/13/2011 02:38:13 AM · #32 |
Thanks to everyone for your valuable input.
Very very much appreciated. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 07:53:37 PM EDT.
