Dissapointed with super telephotos

[todd_fox]

I want to purchase a 300-400mm lens with IS in the $800-$1200 range. I am

dissapointed with the offerings available from Canon, which are:

 

100-400 f4.5-f5.6 L IS -- I would prefer a prime lens for better image

quality. Plus there is better IS technology now.

 

400 f5.6 L -- older lens with no IS, but still about $1200. I really want IS,

and this would be a fantastic lens if it was updated with IS.

 

300 f4.0 L -- probably the best option, but when will Canon update the older

2nd generation IS? I'm not sure I want to spend $1200 on a lens know there is

better IS technology available that simply has not made it into this lens yet.

 

Does anyone think this is an unfair judgement? Am I being too picky? I guess

the bottom line is that I wish Canon would update the IS in one of these

lenses.

 

If anyone is interested in making suggestions, I plan to use the lens for

wildlife (usually not birds) and occasional sports photography.

[digitmstr]

If you are not a PRO obviously you can't justify the high cost of the faster teles (unless you are very wealthy of course).

 

I think Canon offers plenty for a fair price. If I were you I'd get the 300 f/4L IS and start shooting...

 

Tell me: is there are particular reason, a specific problem with the IS in the 300 f/4L IS that has caused problems for you in the past? Have you missed a shot because of it? Has anyone said "great picture but, the older IS ruins it".... you know what I mean?

 

If we all waited for the 'next' best thing we'd never shoot one single picture. Personally, I'd rather be taking pictures.

[awindsor]

These are not normally called super telephotos. This designation is normally reserved for 500mm and beyond. Canon also calls their 300/2.8, 400/2.8 and, 400/4 lenses super telephotos - mainly for their extreme price rather than extreme length I feel.

 

I went with the 300/4 IS. I actually considered getting a used 300/4 but they are not much cheaper and don't focus as close (a problem for small mammals).

 

I often use a tripod and then I turn off IS. Unless your subject is static you will get motion blur before IS becomes the limiting issue. A better IS unit might get you a few more shots but it is not a huge difference. It is unlikely to be any help in sports since a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action will already be hand holdable with the current IS (and possibly without IS at all). The faster start up of the new units would be nice but I bought the lens anyway.

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for these prime lenses to be updated. You might get more lucky with the 100-400 but I am not holding my breath for that either.

[mark from thailand]

I am certainly neither a pro nor rich but I bought the 300/4, with the 1.4 TC & am very happy

with the combo.

 

It has delivered me shots like the following & that is at ISO 1600 first thing in the morning.

[savas_kyprianides]

The leopards seem to be debating as to whether your lens had IS or not.

[gordon_kraeger1]

Mark,

Nice shot. The leopards seem to disagree with your title of the picture, since they're cheetahs. :)

[awindsor]

That's why they're frowning :(

[pjmeade]

The 300/f4 IS is a pretty fair lens. I've had mine for about 2 months now, I've used it for birds and sport and although it needs the 1.4x for birds, it's produced some very impressive results.

 

I haven't used the 100-400, but I've met some professionals who use them extensively. Having seen their work, I'm impressed.

 

So, I don't think the Canon range is that shabby.

 

My 2p

 

Pete

[jim_larson1]

Well. . .I think the 400/5.6L could certainly use IS.

 

And my knock on the 100-400/5.6L-IS is the "push pull" design. . .which when I was shopping proved to be a huge turnoff.

 

Personally. . .I would go with the 300/4L-IS. I *do not* want canon to update this lens. An updated lens would cost $1600+. The improved image stabilization would not be worth the cost difference.

[pjmeade]

Jim, my take on it is that if you want a 400/f5.6 with IS, you get the 300 and a 1.4x. I don't know how they compare in price though.

 

P

[awindsor]

The 400/5.6 and the 300/4 IS are very close in price. The problem is if you need rapid AF for some purpose. The 300/4 IS + 1.4x does not focus very rapidly. For flight shots birds you are much better off with the 400/5.6.

 

Having said that I went with the 300/4 IS + 1.4x simply because it is much more flexible. I actually tossed up getting a Tamron 200-500/5-6.3 lens but could not find one to try locally so I went with the tried and true.

[dave_holland]

Those are cheetahs, not leopards. Note the characteristic dark teardrops.

Regarding the long lens debate, most supertelephoto lenses are dramatically more expensive than $1200. On a budget, expect to pay a premium dollar for cutting-edge technology, so new additions may not be your friend. With budget in mind you might look for something older, where your cash will go more to value than to the trend of the day.

[keith_lubow]

Don't let gizmos like IS sway your decision. People did without it for 150 years, and their photos were great. It won't really help in sports, because you need to use high shutter speeds anyway to stop action. You only need to use '300 or above to hand hold a 300mm lens. It may be cool technology, but I think it is still overpriced and just one more thing to break. It is not really for shooting action, just low light stuff that isn't really moving that fast, like available light portraits or street scenes, for instance.

 

Keith

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

Have you used other Canon IS lenses?

 

IMHO, Image Stabilization is the best single photographic improvement since roll film and interchangeable lenses. (Uh, okay, guess I'd better change that to 4GB CF cards instead of film now!)

 

I have not used the 300/4 IS lens itself, but have every reason to believe you will find it super for your purposes. I have been using 70-200, 300/2.8 and 500/4 with IS frequently over the past five years (EOS3s, EOS7, and now on 10D, 30D... someday on 1Ds).

 

300mm is a great focal length for larger wildlife, in particular.

 

Recently I was stongly considering the newer 24-105 for its IS, too, but the F4 aperture spoiled that lens for me. Opted for the 24-70/2.8 instead. (Even that's a little slow for my taste in the tele end of that focal length range. But I will be using it hard anyway for a "convenience" lens and have 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 to fall back on when I want a really nice, soft background.)

 

I've also often borrowed a friend's older 28-135 with IS and even that works pretty darned well. Then there is the 70-300 IS. I do find the plasticky contruction of these lenses, and the "zoom creep" of the 28-135, a bit disappointing. Optically speaking I can vouch for the 28-135 as a very decent lens, but have only played around with the 70-300 IS and can't give an opinion other than it might be worth a try if it were all someone's budget allowed.

 

I agree also, the 1.4X II is superb. 2X II is quite impressive with on the 300 and 500, but I don't particularly care for it on the 70-200.

 

And, I too have seen a lot of very nice work done with the 100-400. It seems to be a fine lens, rivalling the image quality of many prime lenses, just a bit slow for my tastes. I wasn't aware it's a push-pull type zoom, another thing that would prevent keep me from buying it (This is a personal preference... Just never thought I could get as steady a shot with that type of zoom.)

 

Plus I'm a bit of a photo dinosaur from the days when zoom lenses really sucked and variable apertures made flashwork a nightmare. Before starting to shoot Canon, back before AF in fact, I only had one or two zoom lenses, just "zoomed with my feet" whenever that wasa possible. The 100-400 would be very helpful lightening up the camera bag, though!

 

IS is great stuff, IMO, whatever version. It will never completely replace practice, technique, skill and tripods/monopods, but it does improve good/printable shot percentages more than any other recent technology I can think of.

 

If you are still uncertain, perhaps someone in your area rents the equipment so you could give it a test drive before you fully commit to buy.

 

Besides, great thing today is that with eBay etc. you can try something out and, if it just doesn't work out for you, sell it and recoup much of your investment. Might even be cheaper than renting.

 

Cheers!

 

 

P.S. Now, you didn't ask, but one thing I wish for is that Canon would bring back the 200/1.8 and add IS to that already tremendous lens! About the only other update I'd like to see on it is a change to the same size drop-in filters as the other super-teles.

[marknagel]

I have the 100-400IS and 70-200IS and had the 17-85is. Never could tell the differnce in the IS. So, yes I think you are making a big deal out of it. There will always be better. On a tripod, IS really doesn't matter. I used all with and without and with IS on and off and they all seem to work just fine. The 100-400IS is a very nice lens, never had a problem with the IS, never.

 

Mark

[steve torelli]

As other posters have said, I think you're asigning too much importance to the latest version Of IS. One stop isn't going to affect your pictures much. We'd all like to have a 400 2.8 IS for a couple hundred bucks but it just ain't gonna happen. I've seen some really nice shots taken in good light with the 400 5.6. If you need the length and don't shoot in darker conditions often, this could work for you. Otherwise the 300 f4 and 1.4 TC is the way to go, but remember, adding the TC will leave you with a 420mm 5.6.

IS is nice to have, I own the 70-200 2.8 IS myself and am very happy with it.But,no technology will make up for a lack of, or sloppy technique.I'm one of those that would go for a faster lens over IS if forced to make a choice. I'm able to hold my camera steady and have trained myself to squeeze the shutter down as if squeezing the trigger of a gun, something I've done thousands of times. I've been able to get good shots from my non-IS lenses at pretty low SS.But, YMMV. Good luck.

[eos 10 fan]

Maybe you need to get one of them new fangled, fancy-smancy DSLRs with IS built into the body ;)

 

--

[keith_green1]

I frequently use my 300 f4 IS with the Canon EF 2x Converter on an EOS 3. Focus speed is slow, but reasonably reliable.

Are you using Full Frame/Film, or a cropped Digital?

Keith

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>when will Canon update the older 2nd generation IS?</cite>

 

<p>Canon has never re-released an older-generation IS lens to add a newer generation of IS. That should make it pretty clear that you should not hold your breath on this one.</p>

 

<p>I used to own the 300/4. Yes, the IS in my 70-200/2.8 is better than the IS in the 300/4, but I had no trouble living with the older IS. And it's a sharp lens, very well built, handles well, and did I mention it's sharp? Here are a few photos taken with it, and while you can't tell much about sharpess from Web-size photos, I can assure you that the original images are indeed sharp.</p>

 

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/animals/1292Horseface.jpg">Przewalksi's Horse</a>

<li><a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/animals/1529Lionesssnarl.jpg">White lioness</a>

<li><a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/animals/1548Cheetah.jpg">Cheetah</a> (taken with 1.4x teleconverter)

<li><a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/friends_and_family/1563Dee.jpg">My ex-girlfriend</a>

</ul>