Now THAT is a neat website! Makes me question using the 70-200/2.8 with an extender versus just adding the 400/5.6 prime to my arsenal. Andy, I had always heard the 400/5.6 prime was a fast focusing lens, but I see you disagree?
Now THAT is a neat website! Makes me question using the 70-200/2.8 with an extender versus just adding the 400/5.6 prime to my arsenal. Andy, I had always heard the 400/5.6 prime was a fast focusing lens, but I see you disagree?
I know for a fact in great light that it is - but I used it in low-ish light (daylight in Alaska, heavy bright cloud cover) and we were shooting at ISO 800 to get the fast shutter speeds.... it was OK for focusing. Lots of hits but sure lots of misses, also. I was using it on a 7D for the most part. Probably would be even better on a 1D Mark IV.
The more I read about it the more interesting the 70-300 is. Shame its not an f4 (the price increase would be worth it imho). Cant wait for some real reviews and sample shots then time to rent one
Well there is one hires sample shot at f5.6, 260mm with a 5D II in the lens
positioning article. Very nice colors and sharpness but not that mindblowing.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
The other alternative is to use a Nikon D3 and the awesome 200-400 f/4 VR lens.
This is an ideal set up for the safari unless Canon comes up with an equivalent lens. It's interesting to read Joe Johnson's observation regarding photo gear on his recent safari trip.
Cuong
"She Was a Little Taste of Heaven – And a One-Way Ticket to Hell!" - Max Phillips
This is an ideal set up for the safari unless Canon comes up with an equivalent lens. It's interesting to read Joe Johnson's observation regarding photo gear on his recent safari trip.
Cuong
Yeah I read that, including his awesome Safari-vehicle monopod clamp setup!
I just shot for a few days, from am moving boat, mammals and birds in Alaska - using a 400 f/5.6 and 100-400L - neither of which is consistently good enough or fast enough for the job.
I was using it on a 7D for the most part. Probably would be even better on a 1D Mark IV.
Andy, this surprises me. The 400 F5.6 always seemed like a pretty fast focusing lens to me. The 100-400 seems to focus just as fast *if* you turn off the IS. As far as consistency of focus, that would be more of a function of the camera body than the lens. No?
Andy, this surprises me. The 400 F5.6 always seemed like a pretty fast focusing lens to me. The 100-400 seems to focus just as fast *if* you turn off the IS. As far as consistency of focus, that would be more of a function of the camera body than the lens. No?
Cheers,
-joel
It's fast in good light I think. We had a lot of low light situations - shooting down into rocky areas and such.
Hey Andy, did you do any of the recommended setup stuff for the 7D? I wish I'd saved the link but it contained a number of suggestions that improve the hit rate.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
It's fast in good light I think. We had a lot of low light situations - shooting down into rocky areas and such.
I believe the speed with which the lens focuses shouldn't change in low light though. However, the ability of the camera to acquire the focus is greatly diminished. That's why I'm thinking it was the camera, and not the lens. The lens just does what the camera says, and doesn't care about how much light there is. Or so that's my understanding. Maybe Ziggy will chime in here.
The other alternative is to use a Nikon D3 and the awesome 200-400 f/4 VR lens.
The Nikon 200-400 weighs the same as the Canon 500mm. Ok, 1/2 lb less. Maybe put the 70-200 on one body and a 500 on the other? Of course, then you need a wide angle setup too. Two bodies just ain't gonna do it, is it?
This thread is now seriously hijacked. Sorry Manfr3d.
The camera and lens both contribute to AF success, as do both illumination and scene contrast.
Possible causes for differences between lenses and AF success:
Reduced contrast at particular focal lengths.
Single speed AF motors.
Inadequate motor braking.
Lenses with soft cormers/edges in the image at largest aperture.
While AF differences may be negligible in good light and with high contrast subjects, when the light goes down, or you shoot in the shadows or you shoot subjects with poor contrast, the differences become apparent.
To help, you can switch the lens to manual focus and use focus confirmation to indicate prime focus under difficult situations. If that technique helps a lot, and you get desirable focus results, then the likely culprits are single speed AF motors and/or inadequate motor braking.
The AF section of the 1D MKIV is indeed more capable in low light "and" with lower contrast subjects. The Area SIR construction and more sensitive AF sensor are the major reasons why.
This thread is now seriously hijacked. Sorry Manfr3d.
fool me not, andy must've lost focus
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
This is an ideal set up for the safari unless Canon comes up with an equivalent lens. It's interesting to read Joe Johnson's observation regarding photo gear on his recent safari trip.
Cuong
Re JJ's o's, that's real, isn't it!!!thumb
He would have needed his support systems in many of those shooting situations with a non-stabilised camera-lens combo. Can't understand going on safari with non-stabilised gear. The Nikon combo he describes was probably giving as good or better IQ results without JJ's RRS support, and more interesting images, because more spontaneous. I think we all have experienced the heartache of the shots that got away while we were preoccupied with our gadgets. What gets the really outstanding shots, I reckon, is being fast to move into the best AF mode, eg servo, and from single shot to rapid burst, as needed. Also, if you are so blessed, to have two camera-lens combos to hand.
If you pick your safari time and location right (great migration time, or after a dry season around river pools) you will have plenty of easy mid-distance shots. The drivers are usually as keen as you to get close and in the best position. It's the photographer's speed that counts, because some animals, especially the hoofed variety, and monkeys and small mammals etc, move abruptly on being approached. The cats are far lazier, though rarer and harder to find. At the Fox's camp at Ruaha River in Tanzania we drove up to within two metres of a cheetah and cubs lying in the shade of trees, elsewhere a lion was lazing on the bank of a sandy river bed less than 100m away causing great consternation to a herd of elephant who wanted to get past him along the river. But when we came suddenly upon zebra or antelopes you might be lucky to get their rear ends obscured by dust!:D
Neil
This is my collection from that trip. All sooc jpegs. I was the proud wielder of my first digital camera, a Nikon 5700 p&s, and I was totally unphased by the dslr guys with their big lenses - all of that stuff was like something from another planet - my previous camera had been a Box Brownie. I was greener than Bob Brown about *real* photography.
Here are some hires samples from the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS from Canon
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Well this overview shows it only 0.5 inches wider, and of course considerably shorter than the 70-200 f4, so I suppose the photographer has unusually small hands .
Some more pics and impressions on the 70-300 and 8-15mm from a trade show goer: here
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
+ Canon 8-15mm f/4.0 L Fisheye in January 2011 at $1.400
+ Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS in October 2010 at $1.500
+ Canon 300mm f/2.8 L IS II in December 10 at $7.000
+ Canon 400mm f/2.8 L IS II in December 10 at $11.000
+ Canon 500mm f/4.0 L IS II in 2011, no price yet
+ Canon 600mm f/4.0 L IS II in 2011, no price yet
+ Canon 1.4x and 2.0x TC III in December 2010 at $500
It looks as though Canon is trying to price the hobbyist out of the picture.
Andy, have you thought about a canon 200 f2 with a 1.4 and 2 time TC's?
Fairly light at 5.5 pounds it may be an option.
Sure does! They're not gonna let N**** continue to have a bigger bite on the buyer's butt.
Unfortunately, this strategy may backfire on them. The reason I went with Canon in the first place was the relatively lower prices on the higher end lenses. They must be pretty sure of themselves these days to eliminate that benefit.
Another problem that I see is that the used lenses of these super telephotos will increase in price also.
So if you're looking to buy one of these lenses used, now might be the time.
When the Mark I's can't be bought new anymore, and the Mark II is $7000, (300 f2.8 is) I'm thinking that
a used Mark I will be more than what it goes for new right now.
Maybe a year after they come out Canon will adjust the price some. Then again, maybe not.
It looks as though Canon is trying to price the hobbyist out of the picture.
Andy, have you thought about a canon 200 f2 with a 1.4 and 2 time TC's?
Fairly light at 5.5 pounds it may be an option.
This is one that I have been looking at a great bit. And maybe my 400 f4 DO as well.
I used the same 100-400 IS L in Alaska with Andy, and I have some acceptable images, but a fair number of misses in focus, but shooting from a moving boat in overcast marine conditions is not the easiest type of wildlife shooting that is for sure. I looked at a lot of my images - Most were shot at ISO 400 f8, 1/1600th. I hardly ever use the 1000-400 wider than f8 except under protest.
I am still hoping that Canon will produce a real 200-400 F3.5 IS lens but rather doubt it. Seems a natural step to me to react to Nikon's 200-400 f4 VR - a full half stop more light.
70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS
If it were a 100-300mm f/4L IS with a constant f/4 aperture, I'd seriously consider it! The variable aperture on the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens will probably close down to f/5.6 pretty quickly (If the variable apertures of other lenses are any guide). I need at least f/4 at 200mm.
On the other hand, this lens is a half pound or so heavier than my 70-200mm f/4L IS. I don't think it would work for me as my go-to, carry-everywhere, tele lens...
BTW: Does the front element rotate like the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens? I like to use polarizers and rotating front elements are a big PITA with CPL filters.
It's nice of Canon not to introduce any new lenses for which I would sell my kidney to buy!
Comments
Now THAT is a neat website! Makes me question using the 70-200/2.8 with an extender versus just adding the 400/5.6 prime to my arsenal. Andy, I had always heard the 400/5.6 prime was a fast focusing lens, but I see you disagree?
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I know for a fact in great light that it is - but I used it in low-ish light (daylight in Alaska, heavy bright cloud cover) and we were shooting at ISO 800 to get the fast shutter speeds.... it was OK for focusing. Lots of hits but sure lots of misses, also. I was using it on a 7D for the most part. Probably would be even better on a 1D Mark IV.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Well there is one hires sample shot at f5.6, 260mm with a 5D II in the lens
positioning article. Very nice colors and sharpness but not that mindblowing.
― Edward Weston
Cuong
Yeah I read that, including his awesome Safari-vehicle monopod clamp setup!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Andy, this surprises me. The 400 F5.6 always seemed like a pretty fast focusing lens to me. The 100-400 seems to focus just as fast *if* you turn off the IS. As far as consistency of focus, that would be more of a function of the camera body than the lens. No?
Cheers,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
It's fast in good light I think. We had a lot of low light situations - shooting down into rocky areas and such.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Link to my Smugmug site
Link to my Smugmug site
The camera and lens both contribute to AF success, as do both illumination and scene contrast.
Possible causes for differences between lenses and AF success:
While AF differences may be negligible in good light and with high contrast subjects, when the light goes down, or you shoot in the shadows or you shoot subjects with poor contrast, the differences become apparent.
To help, you can switch the lens to manual focus and use focus confirmation to indicate prime focus under difficult situations. If that technique helps a lot, and you get desirable focus results, then the likely culprits are single speed AF motors and/or inadequate motor braking.
The AF section of the 1D MKIV is indeed more capable in low light "and" with lower contrast subjects. The Area SIR construction and more sensitive AF sensor are the major reasons why.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It has? TCs were part of the announcement, no?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
fool me not, andy must've lost focus
― Edward Weston
Re JJ's o's, that's real, isn't it!!!
He would have needed his support systems in many of those shooting situations with a non-stabilised camera-lens combo. Can't understand going on safari with non-stabilised gear.
If you pick your safari time and location right (great migration time, or after a dry season around river pools) you will have plenty of easy mid-distance shots. The drivers are usually as keen as you to get close and in the best position. It's the photographer's speed that counts, because some animals, especially the hoofed variety, and monkeys and small mammals etc, move abruptly on being approached. The cats are far lazier, though rarer and harder to find. At the Fox's camp at Ruaha River in Tanzania we drove up to within two metres of a cheetah and cubs lying in the shade of trees, elsewhere a lion was lazing on the bank of a sandy river bed less than 100m away causing great consternation to a herd of elephant who wanted to get past him along the river. But when we came suddenly upon zebra or antelopes you might be lucky to get their rear ends obscured by dust!:D
Neil
This is my collection from that trip. All sooc jpegs. I was the proud wielder of my first digital camera, a Nikon 5700 p&s, and I was totally unphased by the dslr guys with their big lenses - all of that stuff was like something from another planet - my previous camera had been a Box Brownie.
http://neilal.smugmug.com/Travel/Tanzania-Aug-2006/1841587_KDv3r
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
― Edward Weston
Saw this shot from Photokina, and the 70-300 looks FAT, really this must be a chunk of glass:
http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_news/canon_photokina_2010_09.jpg
My Gear
My Websites - Personal www.ericsmemories.com |"Professional" www.vividphotography.org
My Favorite Photos - Chicago, NYC, DC, London, Prague, Alaska, Yellowstone, Glacier NP, Vermont, Mt. Rushmore, Badlands NP, The Appalachian Trail
― Edward Weston
It looks as though Canon is trying to price the hobbyist out of the picture.
Andy, have you thought about a canon 200 f2 with a 1.4 and 2 time TC's?
Fairly light at 5.5 pounds it may be an option.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Sure does! They're not gonna let N**** continue to have a bigger bite on the buyer's butt.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Link to my Smugmug site
So if you're looking to buy one of these lenses used, now might be the time.
When the Mark I's can't be bought new anymore, and the Mark II is $7000, (300 f2.8 is) I'm thinking that
a used Mark I will be more than what it goes for new right now.
Maybe a year after they come out Canon will adjust the price some. Then again, maybe not.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
I'll take one of each
-Fleetwood Mac
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
This is one that I have been looking at a great bit. And maybe my 400 f4 DO as well.
I used the same 100-400 IS L in Alaska with Andy, and I have some acceptable images, but a fair number of misses in focus, but shooting from a moving boat in overcast marine conditions is not the easiest type of wildlife shooting that is for sure. I looked at a lot of my images - Most were shot at ISO 400 f8, 1/1600th. I hardly ever use the 1000-400 wider than f8 except under protest.
I am still hoping that Canon will produce a real 200-400 F3.5 IS lens but rather doubt it. Seems a natural step to me to react to Nikon's 200-400 f4 VR - a full half stop more light.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
If it were a 100-300mm f/4L IS with a constant f/4 aperture, I'd seriously consider it! The variable aperture on the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens will probably close down to f/5.6 pretty quickly (If the variable apertures of other lenses are any guide). I need at least f/4 at 200mm.
On the other hand, this lens is a half pound or so heavier than my 70-200mm f/4L IS. I don't think it would work for me as my go-to, carry-everywhere, tele lens...
BTW: Does the front element rotate like the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens? I like to use polarizers and rotating front elements are a big PITA with CPL filters.
It's nice of Canon not to introduce any new lenses for which I would sell my kidney to buy!
Your kidney might very well be pressed into that kind of service in the near future if Canon's pricing trends continue. Look after it!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix