300mm vs 400mm

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<blockquote>

<p dir="ltr">I recently upgraded to a 300mm F2.8 and I heavily use the 1.4x and 2.0x extenders.</p>

</blockquote>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">I see a 500/4 in your future..... :-)</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>I did a search and this came up, you may want to take a look at it.<br>

Written by Arthur Morris<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/nature/birdfaq">http://www.photo.net/learn/nature/birdfaq</a></p>

[simon_t1]

<p>I'm swaying towards to 100-400mm. I've seen bird shots with it they are great, but not seen any close ups such as dragonflies or butterflies. Any one has a sample please.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>He went through 3 copies of the 100-400 IS and 2 copies of the 400/5.6</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>one guy;</li>

<li>the 400 prime was almost as bad in terms of "right oneness" as the 100-400mm - one of the main arguments people use <em>against</em> the zoom <em>in favour of</em> the prime.</li>

</ol>

<p>All in all, hardly a damning condemnation of the 100-400mm as far as the product variation "problem" is concerned, then.</p>

<p>Your friend might well be a great photographer, Yakim, but that does not rule out the possibility that JDM has it right when he says:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Some new users of any given lens, will - having been hyped up by internet viral criticisms - wonder if their lens is a "good one" or not. Since they are not acquainted well with how it works, they take a couple of shots which they examine at 100% on their screen and find it is fuzzy!<br>

<br /> Something's <em>fuzzy</em> all right, but it's only very rarely the lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe by 100-400mm no. 3 your pal might have spent enough time in the company of the lens to have gained a handle on its idiosyncrasies - a state he might have arrived at anyway if he'd held onto no. 1 for an similar amount of time overall.</p>

<p>In any event - <em>one</em> guy...</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I did a search and this came up, you may want to take a look at it.<br /> Written by Arthur Morris<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="../learn/nature/birdfaq">http://www.photo.net/learn/nature/birdfaq</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>On his own site AM wrote a more recent piece wherein he explicitly stated that he'd come to prefer the 100-400mm over the prime as his favourite "walkabout" birding lens - look at "confession no. 1" here: http://www.birdsasart.com/b13.html</p>

<p>He's very complimentary of the zoom here too: http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4is.html</p>

<p>He has since flipped back to favouring the prime (he likes the light weight of the prime), suggesting that there's so little in it as far as end results are concerned that the choice of one over another is more a personal preference than anything do do with the demonstrable IQ/performance superiority of one over another.</p>

<p>Even Art's own comments here http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/000lK8 (7 posts down) clearly spell out that in his view, the 100-400mm lacks for nothing in sharpness compared to the prime.</p>

[m._scott_clay1]

<p>My 1st and only copy of the 100-400L was great! Toward the end, I didn't use it as much as I first did, so I traded it for a 24L TS to do architecture. Wish I had it back. In all the Canon lenses I've purchased new, I've only taken on back and traded for another copy. I don't even remember which one it was.<br>

Happy Independence Day! Go out and shoot (with a camera) some fireworks!</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>In any event - <em>one</em> guy...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know, but I believe him.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[rob - atlanta, ga usa]

<p>I forget where I read it, but there is some speculation that the unsharp results with the 100-400 are due to users putting protective filters on the front of the lens. A few tests have been done that seem to confirm, at least with one or two samples, that the less than sharp results at 400mm could be due to using a filter on the lens. Even expensive high quality B&W filters seem to have an adverse effect on this particular lens.<br /> The filter could also affect focus accuracy.<br>

<br /> You can probably find this info by doing a Google search.</p>