Canon 100-400 or 300 with Rebel?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use
with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, either
lens would give a respectable telephoto length.

Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and can you
comment on the decision process?

--Wayne

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ewrOe.4425$Hi.3283@trnddc04...
>I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use
>with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, either
>lens would give a respectable telephoto length.
>
> Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and can you
> comment on the decision process?

The 100-400 is a nice lens but it's pricey and it's a big and heavy beast.
I like mine (here is a sample:
http://home.comcast.net/~charlessc [...] e1057.jpg)

A better buy for some folks is the 75-300 IS (here is a sample:
http://home.comcast.net/~charlessc [...] e1056.jpg)

I tried some tripod tests with both of the above at 300 mm and the 100-400
is sharper, but not so much as to justify the huge difference in cost. The
100-400 also focuses faster; but again, given the cost, size and weight,
many could be better off with the 75-300.

If cost, size and weight are not issues, definitely go with the 100-400.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I would be using the lens for wildlife. IS would be a plus, as I can't
always use a tripod. I do have a 200mm that does a pretty good job (x1.6),
but I would like to go out a little farther with 300 or 400 (x1.6).
Thanks
--Wayne


"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11gkni0ah6a4acf@corp.supernews.com...
> Wayne <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use
>> with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body,
>> either
>> lens would give a respectable telephoto length.
>
> What kind of subjects do you have in mind? If you're shooting something
> like wildlife, where your longest lens is never quite long enough, then
> you might wish for the ability to go to 400mm rather than 300mm. That's
> one thing to keep in mind (I can't comment on the lenses themselves, so
> I'll leave that part to others).
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Wayne <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> wrote:

> I would be using the lens for wildlife.

I'd go for the zoom, definitely, between the two, then. I just recently
started trying wildlife, and my longest lens is 300mm (x1.5 for Nikon), and
I definitely found that I wanted longer. 300mm seems really long until you
start pointing it at animals.

> IS would be a plus, as I can't always use a tripod.

That, too. Tripods aren't optimal for wildlife anyway; I think a monopod
is a bit better as you have more freedom of movement. (I use a ball head
on my monopod, though, which makes it less restrictive.)

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <8o2dnVfDps4005feRVn-2g@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>"Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:ewrOe.4425$Hi.3283@trnddc04...
>>I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for
>>use with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the
>>body, either lens would give a respectable telephoto length.
>>
>> Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and
>> can you comment on the decision process?
>>
>
>Depending on your current arsenal, you might add in the Forgotten 400:
>http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml
>
>The comparison to 100-400 frames are telling.

It tells me that this particular sample is defective, unfocused, or poor
tripod technique was used. My 100-400 @400 is way sharper than that, at
f/5.6.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ewrOe.4425$Hi.3283@trnddc04...
>I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use
>with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, either
>lens would give a respectable telephoto length.
>
> Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and can you
> comment on the decision process?
>



Wayne,

These were all taken with a DRebel (300D) and the 100-400 L IS lens.
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/100400

I personally love the lens. It is heavy and the push pull zoom takes some
getting used to but the results are treat IMHO.

As to why I bought the zoom over a prime? Well look at the focal length
numbers on the pics in that gallery and I think that will be clear. I
wanted the flexibility of range that you can't get with a prime lens and I
didn't have enough $ to buy multiple lenses or the desire to constantly
switch lenses.

HTH
--

Rob