Michael Eckstein

<p>If I could only have one lens to use for nature photography it would be the Sigma 150 -600C. I own or have owned all the lenses mentioned. I find I am leaving my "L" lenses home and using the Sigma virtually all of the time. There is no question this lens is the most versatile and gives the best bang for the buck. I am constantly amazed at the image quality.<img src="http://www.meckstein.com/post/card100.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This is a 100% crop from an image at 600mm</p>

<p>Ninety nine percent of the time the problem is the magician and not the wand.</p>

<p>Actually the 400L ƒ5.6 weighs less (2.75lb vs 3.04lb)and costs less ($1339 vs, $1700) then 100/400L. Additionally better image quality and faster auto focus. I've owned both and kept the 400L ƒ5.6.</p>

<p>I owned and used the 100/400L for about 10 years. One day I borrowed a friend's 400L ƒ5.6. The difference in image quality and auto focus acquisition speed was so significant that I bought a 400L ƒ5.6. I found I shot about 90% of my 100/400L images at 400mm. So the change to the straight 400mm was a minor challenge.<br>

If I could have only one lens it would be the 100/400L, but if I could have two lenses it wouldn't be one of them.<br>

I also had the 70/200L ƒ4. When I bought the 400L ƒ5.6. I replaced the 70/200 with the 70/300L. I feel I have made a significant gain in overall image quality and auto focus acquisition with these equipment changes.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p><img src="http://www.springhillcameraclub.org/post/reddish2.jpg" alt="" />I've owned all three and the best of the bunch is the 70/300L. BTW that is the only one I still own. It's one of the best lenses I've ever owned and I have owned Hasselblad and Leica systems.<img src="http://www.meckstein.com/post/reddish2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the Canon 60mm, 100mm and Sigma 150mm macro lenses. I find more and more, I am using the Canon 70/300L and a 12mm tube for macro work.<br>

<img src="http://www.meckstein.com/post/viceroy.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.meckstein.com/post/df.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Canon 2x works very well. This taken with 400 ƒ5.6 and Canon 2x</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've had both lenses and I widely prefer the 400 f5.6. It's sharper wide open then the 100 - 400 at any f stop. Works well with 1.4x and 2 x converters. The 100 - 400 is hopeless with a 2x. Here's a 2x sample with 400 f5.6:<br>

<img src="http://meckstein.com/post/df.jpg" alt="" width="752" height="800" /></p>

<p>If you use a 12mm extension tube between the 1.4 or 2 x extender and the lens, it will work with most lenses, but requires manual focus. You also may or may not be happy with the results.</p>

<p>I use a 550EX in wireless mode, whenever I use flash. Works flawlessly.<br>

Generally use it for macro work, with the flash mounted near the front of the lens. I use the Wimberley flash bracket to hold the flash.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have owned Canon 100, Sigma 150 and Sigma 180. All are excellent. Choose any of them and you can't go wrong.</p>

<p>I have a Meike grip which I have been using with my 7D for almost two years with no problems. A few weeks ago I had both problems mentioned above, front wheel not responding and Canon batteries not supplying charge information.<br>

I removed the grip and cleaned the electrical contacts with a lens cleaning cloth and everything is working perfectly again.</p>

<p>I use manual exposure, A1 servo, back button focus, center focus box expanded, and AF set to slow. These settings increased my keeper rate dramatically. I used to be able to pick out the 1 or 2 good ones out of a 15 frame burst. Now I have hard time picking from the 80% to 90% keeper rate. Not too bad a problem to have though!</p>

<p> </p>

<p><img src="http://www.meckstein.com/post/df.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I owned and used the 100/400L for 10 years . I was quite happy with the results until I tried a friends 400 f5.6 L. The auto focus locks on much quicker and the image quality is superior wide open vs. the 100/400L at any f stop.. I've taken hundreds of images with 100/400L + Canon 2x and never got an image worth printing. Here's an example of the results using the 400 f5.6 L and the Canon 2 x converter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My wife has the the Sigma 170 - 500 and has used it on her 30D, 40D, 50D and current 60D. Sometimes the results she gets make my Canon "L" telephoto lenses jealous. She always use it on a tripod and image quality has never been a problem.</p>

<p>Actually a 100/400L with taped pins does pretty well with auto focus.</p>

<p>Image taken with 100/400L with Canon 1.4X:<img src="http://meckstein.com/post/rbgull.jpg" alt="" width="650" height="433" /></p>

<p>I also have the 70/200L f4. I owned and used the 100/400L for about 10 years and was happy with the results. That is, until I tried a friends 400: f5.6. It is sharper wide open than the 100/400L is at any f stop. It also has much faster AF acquisition. As a nature photographer I have said if I could have only one lens it would be the 100/400L, but if I could have two lenses it would not be one of the them. The switch to the 400L f.56 was not much of a problem, I've learned to zoom with my feet and over 90% of the images I took with the 100/400L were at 400 anyway. Another positive with 400L f5.6 is the very good results achieved with Canon 2x. I've taken hundreds of images the 100/400L and the 2x and was never happy with the results. Here is a image taken with 400L f 5.6 and Canon 2x.<br>

Shot from 11 feet ISO 640:</p>

<p><img src="http://meckstein.com/post/df.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think it's up to Canon to decide what makes a Rebel a Rebel and what makes a 60D a 60D.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I have bought many items from buy.com and never have had a problem.</p>

<p>I've tried most of the raw converters available and I haven't found any that do a better raw file conversion than DPP. Once you get used to the interface you'll be very happy with the results you get. </p>

<p>I got one with my 7D kit and gave it to my wife. I tried it out and liked it o much I bought another for myself. It makes a great travel or walk around lens. The image quality is very good. </p><div></div>

<p>The ƒ4 lens is as sharp as the ƒ2.8, some say it is even sharper. You will not be disappointed in the results. At my age 73, 1/2 the weight is the main reason I have the ƒ4 version. Here's a shot with the 70/200 ƒ4 at iso 3200.<img src="http://www.meckstein.com/post/clara-12-05-09-7D-203.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p> I have the EFS-18/135 and the 70/200L and when used at ƒ8 and printed to 13" x 19" I don't think anyone could tell the difference. BTW the EFS 60 macro and 10/22 are definately not toys!</p>

<p>I am using DPP 3.7.2 on a two year old Macbook with an Intel core 2 duo 2.2 and 4 gigs of ram. I have some folders that have in excess of 300 7D raw images. I see no slow down vs. previous versions of DPP. I can instantly change to another image and work on it while the program is processing the first raw image.</p>