Lens question

jgoetz4

Good Afternoon Folks,
My Bigma will be sold in the next few days, and while I won't miss the weight of the beast, I will miss the reach at the long end. My question is this: Does the convenience of the 100-400 IS offset the IQ of the 400 5.6, or, if given a 'good copy' of the 100-400 IS, the IQ difference is minimal ? Thank you :thumb
Have a good evening
Jim...

LiquidAir

jgoetz4 wrote: »

Good Afternoon Folks,
My Bigma will be sold in the next few days, and while I won't miss the weight of the beast, I will miss the reach at the long end. My question is this: Does the convenience of the 100-400 IS offset the IQ of the 400 5.6, or, if given a 'good copy' of the 100-400 IS, the IQ difference is minimal ? Thank you
Have a good evening
Jim...

After shooting with 100-400 IS for a week, I decided that I would perfer a sharper lens at 400mm (the 100-400 sharpens up quite a bit in the middle of the range). However, I am not sure how much practical use I would get from a 400mm lens with no IS. If I had a pressing need for a 400mm lens I would pick up a 100-400 because it is, for the most part, good enough. Since I can live without it for the time being, I wait and hope for another option.

davev

I had the 400, and it was a very sharp, very good lens.
But it appears that I'm a zoom kind of guy. The zoom for me works out much better,
and the IQ isn't much of a drop off.

The 400 is gone, the 100-400 will be around for years to come. (unless something better comes along)

jgoetz4

LiquidAir wrote: »

After shooting with 100-400 IS for a week, I decided that I would perfer a sharper lens at 400mm (the 100-400 sharpens up quite a bit in the middle of the range). However, I am not sure how much practical use I would get from a 400mm lens with no IS. If I had a pressing need for a 400mm lens I would pick up a 100-400 because it is, for the most part, good enough. Since I can live without it for the time being, I wait and hope for another option.

Good Evening,
Thank you for your response Rumor has it (canonrumors.com) that a possible 100-400 IS II may be coming out in the next month. We'll see.
Have a good evening
Jim...

jgoetz4

davev wrote: »

I had the 400, and it was a very sharp, very good lens.
But it appears that I'm a zoom kind of guy. The zoom for me works out much better,
and the IQ isn't much of a drop off.

The 400 is gone, the 100-400 will be around for years to come. (unless something better comes along)

Thanks Dave
There might be a 100-400 IS II on the horizon. We'll see.
Have a good evening
Jim...

Ray F

Why sell the bigma? if it's the weight, you might consider the sigma 120-400 as an alternative? i haven't checked but the 150-500 is probably a tad lighter too. both come with OS the IS equivalent. They aren't EX-lenses tho... what ever that means

jgoetz4

Ray F wrote: »

Why sell the bigma? if it's the weight, you might consider the sigma 120-400 as an alternative? i haven't checked but the 150-500 is probably a tad lighter too. both come with OS the IS equivalent. They aren't EX-lenses tho... what ever that means

Good Morning Ray,
Yes it is the weight, and I don't like to use a tripod anymore. I definitely want IS, but From what I have read on the net, neither of those lenses you mentioned are as good, IQ wise, as the 100-400 IS. Still debating however. The 300 4.0 IS is also an option w/ a 1.4x tc.
Have a good day
Jim...

Photoskipper

looking into the 100-400 to fill the gap between the 70-200 and 500 mm. Travel with 500 mm is a bit challenge, not only the weight of the lens but also the arms and legs to support its weight. The 70-200 with 2X affect the IQ. Thinking to bring the 24 -105 and 100-400 to cover all travel projects.

ziggy53

Photoskipper wrote: »

... Thinking to bring the 24 -105 and 100-400 to cover all travel projects.

That's a fairly common combination for a 2 lens kit and most folks are pretty satisfied too.