naturetrek

<p>There is the Canon 70-300mm IS, but it's not in the same league (although it's a lot lighter, and produces pretty nice pix). Before buying the 100-400mm I've tried a bunch of Sigmas but none of them were even close to it IQ-wise, except the Sigma 50-500mm which is actually heavier.</p>

 

<p>Optically (image quality wise) they are the same. Only you can determine what focal length will suit your needs.<br>

I have them both, each one serves its own purpose. If I were to chose only one, the 60mm would be it. I also agree with the above responses, you'll probably want the 60 for product and portraits. Even if you do move to FF in the future, this lens holds its value well so you will get most of the investment back.</p>

<p>The main difference between the 60mm and 100mm macro lenses mentioned is the minimum working distance (how far you can be from the subject). For the 60mm, you will be 9cm away; for the 100mm, this distance is 15cm. I own both lenses and never had an issue with the 60mm (and I do take a lot of bug pictures at 1:1).</p>

<p>Another difference is the background blur at the same aperture. This, for me, is more important. I will eventually upgrade to the 180mm lens mainly for this reason. You can find some good info <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx">here</a>.</p>

<p>The 60mm is much lighter, and I use it more. It is also my main portrait lens since I find the 100mm a bit long for that purpose. Go to a store, try them both, see which one you like best. Good luck</p>

<p>There is one lens that does it all (macro and tele): Canon 300mm F4. Great for macro work, although not a true macro lens. Add the Canon extender 1.4x and you get 420mm f5.6 which is not bad at all for birds and such.</p>

<p>Another good combo is Canon 60mm F2.8 macro lens + Canon 400mm F5.6 (you could probably get them both used for around $1200).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I had good experience with 1.4X in good light, the lens stopped down and using a tripod. The 2X is worthless on that lens IMO, even if conditions are right.</p>

<p>Mark: my lens does not show <em>significant </em>IQ differences when compared to my other primes. Maybe you just had a bad copy.</p>

<p>About your last statement, I think that's the whole idea of having the 100-400mm: to be able to shoot in the whole range, and be able to zoom fast back and forth when needed. I'll give you an example (please see <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8996393-lg.jpg">link</a> which is pretty much a full frame, no crop, just resized). A friend next to me was using my 400mm prime. His shot looked a little bit better at the pixel level, but the bird had the wings clipped.</p>

<p>I'll be the first to disagree with Philip :) I love my 100-400mm, I think it's the best zoom lens out there for that range. Indeed, the IS is a bit outdated, but it does the job. At first I also hated the push-pull, but I came to appreciate it.</p>

<p>To give you my 2 cents, I would get a setup like this:</p>

<ul>

<li>50D body </li>

<li>Canon 10-22mm</li>

<li>Tamron 28-70mm F2.8</li>

<li>Canon 60mm F2.8 macro </li>

<li>Canon 100-400mm</li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

<p>Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG. Probably as sharp as a champagne bottle mounted on the camera. Returned it the next day and bought the Canon 400mm F5.6 prime.</p>

<p>Jim: indeed, but the Rebel is one generation newer (not that it matters much), is also lighter (probably closer in weight to his wife's P&S), has larger LCD screen and the anti-dust feature.</p>

<p>I'd get a Rebel XTi instead</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_60_28_macro_usm</p>

<p>Click "more", and judge for yourself. I have it, and it's one of those lenses you can't be without once you try it.</p>

<p>Brian, these are not "macro lenses", they are considered more on the lines of "portrait lenses". The only macro lenses at that range (made by Canon) are the ones Bueh mentioned. If you want to hit two birds with one stone, I'd get the 60mm f2.8, but that won't be under $250.</p>

<p>Hi. The 100-400mm I have fits very rigidly on my 50D, there is no movement whatsoever. However, with my other lenses it's a different story. For example, my 400mm F5.6 prime mounts in so loosely I'm afraid one day it will just fall off :) I haven't seen any sharpness degradation due to this movement on any of the lenses.</p>

<p>Either that finch has been spending too much time next to a nuclear reactor, or it's time to replace your shutter :) I'd bet on the latter.</p>

<p>I have taken some outdoor family portraits with this lens (mounted on 50D) and was very pleased with the results. The background blur is probably the weakest point.<br>

One suggestion, go to http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_100-400_45-56l_is and check the samples. If you keep pressing "more" you'll find some people that use this lens for portraiture.</p>

<p>I always liked the series "A Short Course in [.....] Photography" by Dennis P. Curtin (see <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Short-Course-Canon-EOS-Photography/dp/1928873693">link </a>for the one specific to your camera). I've had them all from my PowerShot G5 days, up to the 50D. It's very well written.</p>

<p>I would guess it is the 2X converter you have that's not very sharp. I get better results when I use BOTH Canon teleconverters (2X and 1.4X) stacked on my 300mm F2.8 (wide open). Try renting a newer copy (mark II) of the Canon 2X, and repeat the tests. Other than that, I think a 100-400mm would be a great choice if you can afford it.</p>

<p>It all depends what is more important to you. If you think smaller/lighter is the way to go, then both the 70-200F4 + 1.4x or the 70-300IS are good choices. I had the 70-300IS for a while, but I upgraded to the 100-400mm. I don't mind carrying more weight to get better results and have more reach.</p>

<p>I also have the 400F5.6 prime, which is only a tad sharper than the zoom (not by much). The problem with the prime is that you can only use it on tripod when there is not much light and, of course, you are "stuck" at 400mm - which could be very irritating when something shows up and the subject doesn't fit in the frame :)</p>

<p>My vote is for 100-400mm</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you want to shoot macro, I would not hesitate to buy it. I'm still using it extensively, even though I also have the 100mm F2.8 macro lens. The 60mm F2.8 is sharp as a tack, and extremely light. I find the minimum working distance to be enough even for bugs.</p>

<p>Edit: Sorry I did not read your post properly, I thought you're talking about the older 100mm F2.8. I don't know anything about the newer "L" version, what I've said in my reply might not be true for this lens.</p>

<p>The teleconverters from Canon (1.4X or 2X) won't work directly mounted between the body and the 100mm lens (not sure about Kenko or other non-Canon teleconverters, they might). You can, however, add an extension tube and then the TC, for example (body -> TC -> extender -> lens).<br /> I don't have an extension tube, but after seeing <a href="http://markusjaisphoto.com/lenses/using-the-canon-ef-100mm-f28-macro-usm-with-a-14x-extender/">this</a>, I am planning on getting one since I already have the 1.4X</p>

<p>Can you post a sample photo ?</p>

<p>Sell the XT + 18-55mm (if it's the 1st generation kit lens), and get a used 40D.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I mean I shudder every time I see the price for something that seems so small and insignificant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Being small is a great thing and for sure it is not insignificant :) I have both extenders (1.4X and 2X) and use them mainly on my 300mm F2.8. There is very little image degradation with the 1.4X ( <a href="../photo/9221355&size=lg">check this</a> ), I think it was worth every penny. Sometimes I even stack it on top of the 2X and it gives good results (when there is enough light).</p>

<p>I'm also with Eric on this one. In plus, you will get better background (bokeh) with a longer lens (180mm vs. 100mm makes a big difference in background blur at the same aperture).</p>