Which Telephoto?

TelePaul

Hey guys,

I'm looking for a long-range telephoto, and after a bad experience with the Canon 100-400L (which I found extremely soft), I'm considering a prime, possibly the 300mm F4 L.

What are people's thoughts on primes vs zooms generally? What is everyone else packing at the longer end of the scale?

Cheers!

Paulw

What do you want to shoot with it??

I have the 100-400mm and it's fine for some situations, but horrible for others.

There is, of course, the new telezoom - 200-400mm f/4 coming out. It has a built in 1.4x TC.

I had a 300mm f/2.8 and loved it. But, sold it and moved on to a 400mm f/2.8 lens. The 400mm is stunning.

mikka631

Hi,

I have the Canon 300mm f4L IS USM and I think it is a great lens for the money. My copy is sharp, the IS is great I can shoot 1/100" handheld no problem, it's not too heavy for taking on long treks and it won't break the bank. You just have to bump up the iso when the light is low and you are using smaller apertures.
If it is what you can afford then you can not go wrong especially when you consider the next up in the range f2.8 is more than 4 times the price.
Sample photo's below

TelePaul

Thanks for that! Sorry, I should have said, I'd like it for wildlife (birds and mammals in controlled environment, zoos and the like). Can I ask in which context you found the 100-400mm disappointing? I was extremely disappointed having taken one on safari, plenty of light but everything was soft beyond the 250mm mark.

The 200-400mm looks great but I guess its way out of my price range! As is the 2.8 actually, though I was also considering the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x converter...of course that runs contrary to my interest in a prime...

Paulw wrote: »

What do you want to shoot with it??

I have the 100-400mm and it's fine for some situations, but horrible for others.

There is, of course, the new telezoom - 200-400mm f/4 coming out. It has a built in 1.4x TC.

I had a 300mm f/2.8 and loved it. But, sold it and moved on to a 400mm f/2.8 lens. The 400mm is stunning.

TelePaul

Whoah, pin-sharp bird shot! Is there much of a crop here? These are great, very helpful.

mikka631 wrote: »

Hi,

I have the Canon 300mm f4L IS USM and I think it is a great lens for the money. My copy is sharp, the IS is great I can shoot 1/100" handheld no problem, it's not too heavy for taking on long treks and it won't break the bank. You just have to bump up the iso when the light is low and you are using smaller apertures.
If it is what you can afford then you can not go wrong especially when you consider the next up in the range f2.8 is more than 4 times the price.
Sample photo's below

Paulw

TelePaul wrote: »

Thanks for that! Sorry, I should have said, I'd like it for wildlife (birds and mammals in controlled environment, zoos and the like). Can I ask in which context you found the 100-400mm disappointing? I was extremely disappointed having taken one on safari, plenty of light but everything was soft beyond the 250mm mark.

The 200-400mm looks great but I guess its way out of my price range! As is the 2.8 actually, though I was also considering the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x converter...of course that runs contrary to my interest in a prime...

The 100-400mm is not great for sport, which I shoot. Slow to focus, and poor in low light.

For wildlife, keep an eye out for a 2nd hand 500mm or 600mm lens. Much cheaper than a 400mm f/2.8 lens.

the_monkey

I'm amazed people have been disappointed with the 100-400 L ,

I took it on safari and found it fantastic - even at 400mm...

There is a 400 5.6L Prime that might suit you ?

its around the same price as the 100-400 L and for sure is sharper

This is one of my fav shots with my 100-400 L @ 400 mm