I'm in the market for a longer lens for my Canon 7D. My focus is primarily wild life and outdoors and I currently have an 18-200, I'm debating between a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM with an extender and a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM. I like the idea of working with a prime lens, but I'm not sure if the versatility of the 100-400 is greater than having a fairly long prime lens...what are your thoughts?
Thanks

The 100-400 runs well and is well worth the price....

Based on my wife's experiences, I think the 100-400 is a good investment and reasonably priced. She lost a bit of resolution with the first skylight filters we tried and is not using a filter now. We will not purchase any more until we are in a store where one can give them a try. With a little effort, she gets by with a lot of handheld shots but it is an image stabilized lens. One really crosses a fiscal line when he steps to 500. Search around here a bit, and one can find several pics my wife has taken. They are of course scaled down for posting, but one should get an idea of its potential.

fwiw, the B+W filters are stellar, particularly the "Kaeseman" line of weather-sealed ones. they run about $150-200 each though.

to the OP, the 100-400 is a great performer and (if you can't get both right away), get the zoom now and re-evaluate the need for a prime later.

I also run mine with no filter unless I toss on a polarizer for some pic...

On Photozone, the rez of the 100-400 @ 400 looks comparable to the 300 w 1.4tc, and the 400 f/5.6 prime. I would hazard to say that the 100-400 would be much more versatile.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

1minute- does your wife find that she is often at the 400 end of the zoom?

Handheld on the long end of a 100-400 canon....

Thanks, that's my inclination also.

RedRabbit:


Just a guess, but for a preponderance of her medium scale wildlife shots (birds, rabbits, coyote, etc), I think she's at the limit. Other times though, when she has some luck and gets close, she's complained that the 100 mm end is too much. That's when she starts chopping off antler tips and such. Those are typically not moments where one can be shuffling about switching things out.

In total, she packs around a true macro (don't remember the designation), a 24-70 mm, a 38-135 mm, and the 100-400. Most of the time, it's the 100-400 that's mounted if wildlife is the objective. When she finally retires and has the time, I'll probably spring for a prime 500. That should be grounds for fine Shiloh for me a bit later on.

400 can do a lot, for sure. I have an Oly E-620 with a 70-300 lens. In an Oly, that's a 140-600 equivalent. I don't have a decent tripod, but with this thing on even a cheap one, it takes some very good long range shots.

I have the same body and lens and have been very happy with this setup. I agree 400mm can really do a lot even when hand held.

The 100-400 really is king...............

1DMK2N/100-400,handheld.



40D/100-400,handheld.



7D/100-400,handheld.



1DMK3/100-400,handheld.



You get the idea.................

Can't find my 100-400 XTi,50D,5D,5D MKII or 1Ds files.

But that glass do shine everywhere.................

Dang, Big Stick, those are some SHARP photos!

Several of my friends have various Canon "L" series lenses, and it is not hard to see that they are a notch (or more) above average. I am going to just go ahead and break the piggy bank, I guess!

John

Compression absolutely kills the images here,though an inkling is conveyed.

The 7D/100-400 is a VERY impressive machine,as it's(7D's) bolstered AF performance,does exceptionally nice things with said glass. While I prefer my 1DMK3 to the 7D,the 1.6x crop is a very nice crutch.

The 7D absolutely crushes the FF 5D2 in AF,for anything moving even a smidge.

Go Heliopan filters.

Hint.....................

The wife's Canon 100-400




One can expand his page a bit by using the Ctrl and + keys and return to normal scale with the Ctrl and - keys.

It do rock.

I'll mebbe dig some more up,later.................

I think you can't get a long enough lens for wildlife. I like to shoot wildlife as well, and even bought a 600mm F/4L. Still not long enough, but here's always the 800mm.

The 100-400 is a reasonable compromise, but if you want go with the 300 + 1.4 T/C. That would be a great combo IMHO.

I'd agree with that, and also suggest that one needs a body to go with each lens and gunbearer to pack everything around. Opportunities are fleeting unless on is locked down waiting for something specific to come together.

I'll trade a stop of light,for the focal length range and IQ inherent...though admittedly,my 100-400 is a ZINGER.




It hangs with primes,though it ain't "supposed" to....................

You know you are onto something,when you can see your reflection in the victim's eye.




Though sometimes you don't wanna..................

Yes, the eyes bring life into ones photos.

What's the difference between Canon's EF series lenses and the EF-S series?

thanks.

From essentially the introduction of the EOS camera system in 1987 through to 2003 Canon standardized on a single lens mount system for all of their SLR cameras - the EF (electrofocus) lens mount. So throughout this time there was no possible source of confusion, since all EF lenses made by Canon and other lensmakers will physically fit all Canon EOS cameras.

However, in 2003 Canon introduced a new digital camera, the consumer-oriented EOS 300D/Digital Rebel/Kiss Digital camera, which sported a new lens mount design dubbed EF-S. All consumer to midrange digital EOS cameras released since have been both EF and EF-S compatible. For reasons explained in a moment, no film camera has ever been EF-S compatible.

So it�s important to remember that digital camera bodies with EF-S lens mounts are totally compatible with all regular EF lenses. However an EF-S lens can fit only EF-S compatible cameras and no others. (unless the lens is altered - see the section on hacking below).

EF-S bodies have small mirror boxes - roughly 2/3 the size of a regular EOS camera (also known as a 1.6x cropping factor) - because they use image sensors which are smaller in area than 35mm film. They, and APS cameras which similarly used small imaging areas, are thus often called subframe cameras. Cameras which use 35mm film or which use large sensors that are the same size as a frame of 35mm film are commonly called full frame cameras these days.

EF-S cameras thus support lenses with a shorter back focus distance than EF lenses, because the mirror swings further back. This is where the �S� comes from - EF-S lenses have shorter back focus distances. (ie: the back part of the lens can get physically closer to the image sensor since the mirror is smaller) Having a shorter back focus distance allows Canon to produce cheaper wide-angle lenses that work with the smaller image format of a subframe digital SLR, since it�s optically very challenging to create a wide angle lens with a long back focus distance.

Canon have a small but growing series of EF-S lenses available, ranging from inexpensive kit lenses to very good high-quality lenses with image stabilization. There�s even a very interesting 60mm macro lens with an EF-S mount. The super wide angle EF-S 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 USM (roughly 16-35mm coverage if it were full frame) is particularly well regarded, as is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM, which is an L lens in all but build quality and name.

The main issue to be concerned about with EF-S is the future value of the lenses. Right now full-frame image sensors are extremely expensive to make, which is why nearly all digital SLRs out there have image sensors smaller than that of a frame of 35mm film. But in the future it�s likely that prices on such sensors will drop, at which time full-frame digital SLRs will become more affordable and thus EF-S lenses will no longer be of use except on pre-existing cameras. The two questions are - how long will this take and will you be able to get good use of your investment in EF-S lenses before this occurs? The first nobody knows the answer to, and the second can only be answered by you. For the time being it seems likely that it�ll be some years before affordable full-frame sensors are ubiquitous, so EF-S lenses aren�t necessarily a bad idea, assuming you aren�t planning on upgrading to full-frame as soon as you c

Thanks for all the feedback. It looks like I'm going to go with the 100-400.

Yep EF-S is for cropper,while EF does it all.

I'm no EF-S lens lineup fan,but dote on both 1.3x and 1.6x crop................

You guys are out of my league (or present budget), but those are some awesome photos.

Ron & Stick,

Thanks for the low down on the ef vs ef-s.

Now can some explain the whole 1.3x or 1.6x crop thing?

If you can't tell I am in the market for a new toy and I want to learn myself up before spending the dollars.

thanks.

35mm film has an image area of 24mm by 36mm. These are the exact dimensions of the area on the film to which an image is recorded.

Medium to low-end digital cameras sold today have sensor chips smaller than 24x36mm in size, since producing a 24x36mm image chip is still quite expensive to do. Similarly, APS film records to an area of film 16.7x30.2mm in size.

The upshot of this is that if you use such a digital or APS camera you�ll be taking photos which do not record the same image size as 35mm film. So it�s like taking a photo using 35mm film and then cropping out (snipping off) the edges. Imagine drawing a smaller rectangle within a given 35mm photo and then cutting it out - you�ve got a digital or APS photo.

This cropping factor is often confusingly referred to as a focal length multiplier. This is because the cropping makes, say, a 50mm lens on an APS camera behave rather like a 70mm lens on a 35mm camera. Not because the focal length has actually changed - it hasn�t - but because of this cropping of the image. The cropping factor is sometimes specified as a numeric value - 1.3x or 1.6x, say.

If you want to use your lens to take photos of things far away then this might actually be to your advantage. But if you want to use a wide-angle lens then this cropping factor can be a problem, since wide-angle lenses yield less dramatic results when you crop out the edges.

Some people object to the term cropping factor as well, arguing quite rightly that the issue is a matter of a change in format of the image recording area and using lenses designed for a different size format. This is true, but people are so used to equating a given 35mm film focal length with a given coverage area (or field of view) that I think the concept of a cropping factor is convenient and easily understood.

To give an example, let�s say you have a 100mm lens. When used on a 35mm film camera you get a certain coverage of the scene. But if you were to put the same lens on a digital camera with a 1.6x crop factor (ie: a smaller than full frame sensor) then you would not get the same view of the scene - you�d get less. The view you would see on your 1.6x digital camera would be the same as if you had a 160mm lens, were there such a thing, on your 35mm film camera.

j_elky,
These may help along with Ron's good explanation

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/dslr_buying_guide_01.htm

With budget often the deciding factor in choosing a big lens, you might take a look at the Sigma AF APO DG HSM 150-500 mm F5-6.3. I've been shooting one on a Nikon D300 lately and, apart from a rather noisy OS motor, I've been pleasantly surprised. The OS really does buy you at least a couple of F stops and has allowed me to shoot some stuff handheld that I could never had shot before without a tripod. With the crop factor on that camera, the lens is effectively a 225-750. I have no idea how it might perform on a Cannon, but it works very well on a Nikon.

The 100-400 smokes the 150-500 Siggy,in IQ and AF.................

I'm a 1.6x slut and wish all of my 1D-Series bodies were 1.6x. The added "reach" is real and a guy can foot zoom for the close stuff.

For Hero Shots,I love the 17-40L and it fends weather exceptionally,especially on a 1D body. My midrange zoom is a 70-200L 2.8 non-IS and the 100-400 is my long glass. Have shot the 70-200 2.8 IS II a fair amount,but I think I prefer the IQ from my non IS version.

It is easier to back up,than it is to get closer and while I shoot all (3) Canon DSLR sensor sizes,I groove on the 1.6x...but dote on the 1D build,weather sealing,battery life,AF and IQ.

I'd be all over a 1.6x 1D...............

That wouldn't surprise me. What I like about the Sigma is the 750 mm effective reach for the price -- especially compared to anything similar wearing a Nikon name. It's a budget lens, to be sure, but it performs very well on my Nikon for everything that I need a big lens to do. Can't say how it performs on a Cannon.

My Siggy 70-200 2.8(version prior to their stabilized jaunt) was exceptional,in all regards.

I'm hardly anti-3rd Party and would be the last to say "Canon or bust",as lenses go................

With Nikon, at least, it all comes down to what you're willing to pay -- and I'm not willing to pay the freight for their big lenses.

Re. third-party lenses, at the other end of the spectrum, I've been really pleased with the Tokina AT-X Pro SD 11-16. Excellent super wide bang for the buck.

My Tammie 28-75 2.8 Macro is simply SINISTER in it's SOOC IQ...even via the 1Ds dinosaur........

Even on an XTi..............

The colors just POP,even SOOC...............

Thoughts on the 40D? How about a 40D vs a T2i?

T2i AF accuracy,trumps 40D AF accuracy and I think the T2i meters better on the average.

My 40D has served well,but the 1D2n made me hate it's guts..............

The Canon 100-400mm shipped today.If anyone is in the market Canon Has some pretty good rebates in place now.

Lenses are like stereos, pickups, and motor cycles. One never wishes he had a smaller one. I think you'll be happy.

I totally agree. I just hope I win the lottery so I can move to a 600 or 800mm someday.

Yep. That is darned near cosigner stuff.

A (well-off!) friend has the Canon 800mm f 5.6 L series lens, and this is the Whimberley tripod head he uses with it. It allows the lens/camera to hang perfectly balanced and thus permits smooth tracking of flying birds, etc. My friend has about 6 or 8 very expensive tripod heads, and after buying this one, he says he will never buy another.



And a picture of the lens and a human for scale:


He is a serious photographer, but does not like computers so I download and archive his pictures for him. This means I get to see all the images that he actually took, not just one or two of the best pictures or pictures already fixed up in Photoshop. I am always impressed at the extremely high ratio of damn-near perfect pictures! It has more advanced image-stabilization than the Canon 600 mm L lens... (another that I can not afford myself!)

The lens is awesome (see the review at this site, or one of many others. Camera buffs love to read reviews -- especially of equipment that they can only fantasize about! My friend was a big fan on Nikon, but switched to Canon because of their "L" series lenses.

Bad news is that this lens is about $US 12,000 in the 'States.

John

The Big L Primes are in a II version now,which should nip Version 1 pricing.

Tough flying all that stuff around. My camera bag I tote to work,averages 46 pounds.................

I ordered the 70-200mm MkII a few weeks back, and it's waiting for me in the 'Stan. Gonna leave the MkI version home for the wife.

It still works though...

I love the 70-200 2.8,but find that as per usual,I'm either at a shorter or longer focal length and shoot it very little as compared to other glass.

Seriously considering a Siggy 50 1.4,for Hero Pics...just for the bokeh................

BW those are seriously good pics. :-)

Prolly my favorite 70-200L 2.8 pic of All Time and curiously enough...ala 1Ds Dinosaur.

Ordered the Siggy 50mm F1.4 a coupla days ago and hope to air it out directly on Chrome...........

Tons of nice shots on this thread. Unlike BigStick, the 70-200 2.8 fits my needed range pretty well and gets heavy usage.

I think this was shot at f4.0 even though the bokeh makes me suspect otherwise. Where' that dang exif?

ETA: Crap...photobucket DOES down shift the detail!

Photobucket does compress a bit, and images are resized here to keep the whole forum visible on most monitors/resolutions. If you are using firefox, right click the image, and select "view image" to see what photobucket gives you normally.

Your exif shows F4.

Thanks cwh2!
"view image" allowed me to view the "larger" image as hosted at Photobucket, but even that is degraded somewhat compared to the image that was originally uploaded. I've noticed that some other photosharing sites such as shutterfly and flickr don't do this.

Yes, I pulled the original image and read the exif; f4.0. Is there a way to read exif's directly from my browser (FF or IE?)

Upgrade to a Pro 'bucket account.

Hint...............

...you mean actually "pay" to share something?... hmmmm...I'll have to think about that one...

"Free" will only getcha' so far. Should you feel compelled that your offerings trump those particulars,the modest fiscal upgrade,may well be worth your while.

Only you can decide that..............

When I went shopping for a photo hosting site, I didn't find one that didn't compress, at least a bit. I'm pretty far from the point where a little compression is the weakest link in my photography, but your mileage is likely to vary...

Here's the exif viewer... Link

Thanks cwh2, I've been playing with that FF plug-in and been helpful.

If she is not flying,my wife takes her Nikon 600.She went on a trip to Anartica and rented a 400 which was very good. In Manitoba,she used her 80-300 I belive it is, as the polar bears were all withing 50 yards.

At the time of purchase,there were only 3 each 600mm lens for sale the US. She was lucky enough tha tone of the personswho was going to buy it in Japn canceled out

I was the the primary gear packer, and a 400 is just about all one wants to lug very far. The big 5-600 also take a lot more stable tripod