400 Prime Canon?

ginger_55 · January 31, 2005

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12129&is=USA

Someone suggested this a while back, and I said no. But it is relatively light, focuses very fast. I went to FM, only drawback was the distance one had to be from the subject. Everyone liked it.

Someone here suggested it, I don't remember who. I am at the point now where I would try it. I hear on the 300 lenses, it is just that the excitement level can't get high for me, as mine goes to 300, the shots might not be good, but I know what 300 looks like. However I will keep that in mind.

What do you all think about the primes, and this one in particular?

ginger

DoctorIt · January 31, 2005

this lens is old. doesn't even have flourite glass, so you can barely call it L glass. and 11 feet minimum focus!

patch29 · January 31, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

this lens is old. doesn't even have flourite glass, so you can barely call it L glass. and 11 feet minimum focus!

An extension ring can help a lot with that, but they can be a pain to use.

DoctorIt · January 31, 2005

patch29 wrote:

An extension ring can help a lot with that, but they can be a pain to use.

and kill your DOF. don't get into that nightmare, I have it here in my lab with my microscope optics all the time. Just spend a bit more money on a better lens, really.

cmr164 · January 31, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

and kill your DOF. don't get into that nightmare, I have it here in my lab with my microscope optics all the time. Just spend a bit more money on a better lens, really.

You get the same depth of field as you would get from any lens that was the same mm & f-stop at the same distance. Close focus has limited DoF, fact of life unfortunately.

DoctorIt · January 31, 2005

cmr164 wrote:

You get the same depth of field as you would get from any lens that was the same mm & f-stop at the same distance. Close focus has limited DoF, fact of life unfortunately.

i don't understand what you mean in that first part. can you clarify?

i get the second part, it's part of my daily work, but I know it gets worse with spacer rings. Example: we have a 28-300 zoom lens that only focuses to about 24 inches. So to get it workable down around 12", I have to add about an inch of spacer. Then, rather than focusing, I basically have to use the zoom to get my small (10mm) sample in the plane of focus. As in, even at infinity, its not in focus depending on effective length.

ginger_55 · January 31, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

i don't understand what you mean in that first part. can you clarify?

i get the second part, it's part of my daily work, but I know it gets worse with spacer rings. Example: we have a 28-300 zoom lens that only focuses to about 24 inches. So to get it workable down around 12", I have to add about an inch of spacer. Then, rather than focusing, I basically have to use the zoom to get my small (10mm) sample in the plane of focus. As in, even at infinity, its not in focus depending on effective length.

I don't understand all that at all. But my question is, "Why don't you just put a more appropriate lens on?".

ginger

DoctorIt · January 31, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

I don't understand all that at all. But my question is, "Why don't you just put a more appropriate lens on?".

ginger

that's a whole nother bag of worms. Sorry for the hijack, I just always love to brush up on my geometrical optics.

As far as your query, I just would never recommend getting a lens that you'll be wanting to use extension rings with on any sort of regular basis. If you know you'll rarely want to use that 400mm for subjects less than 11ft away, its a great lens. Primes don't need the latest lens technology. It's glass, and good glass at that. Just very limited in its application.

mercphoto · January 31, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

i don't understand what you mean in that first part. can you clarify?

He means that if you had a lens that could natively focus at the short distance that your lens/spacer combo could, that lens would also have a shallow depth of field. The depth of field is dependant upon the aperture, focal length, and distance to object. Shorten the distance to object and your DOF drops as well. Its not the fault of the extension tube.

DoctorIt · January 31, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

He means that if you had a lens that could natively focus at the short distance that your lens/spacer combo could, that lens would also have a shallow depth of field. The depth of field is dependant upon the aperture, focal length, and distance to object. Shorten the distance to object and your DOF drops as well. Its not the fault of the extension tube.

Right. Cmr's wording was weird, thanks.

cmr164 · January 31, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

i don't understand what you mean in that first part. can you clarify?

i get the second part, it's part of my daily work, but I know it gets worse with spacer rings. Example: we have a 28-300 zoom lens that only focuses to about 24 inches. So to get it workable down around 12", I have to add about an inch of spacer. Then, rather than focusing, I basically have to use the zoom to get my small (10mm) sample in the plane of focus. As in, even at infinity, its not in focus depending on effective length.

If it focuses to 24" getting it down to 12" should be the shortest of the extension tubes so I wonder that you need full inch.

But anyway, here is the explanation:

The lens fosuses by moving the image back and forth across the film plane. The extension tube phsically moves the lens further away to give you a different range. But what you gain in getting closer you have to lose further away. Thus with my 24-70 and the smallest extension tube the range of focus (at 70mm) is 3"-12" (aproximately) intead of the normal 8"-infinity (aprox again). With my 100-400 I was able to do macro from several feet away with an extension tube.

DoctorIt · January 31, 2005

cmr164 wrote:

If it focuses to 24" getting it down to 12" should be the shortest of the extension tubes so I wonder that you need full inch.

But anyway, here is the explanation:

The lens fosuses by moving the image back and forth across the film plane. The extension tube phsically moves the lens further away to give you a different range. But what you gain in getting closer you have to lose further away. Thus with my 24-70 and the smallest extension tube the range of focus (at 70mm) is 3"-12" (aproximately) intead of the normal 8"-infinity (aprox again). With my 100-400 I was able to do macro from several feet away with an extension tube.

Got it - that loss in the far end (from infinity to 12") is what gets me. My numbers were estimates... and I'm on a C-mount camera, so the smaller diameter makes extension look longer. I should take a photo for you guys, you'd laugh. Big high-speed camera connected to fairly chunky zoom glass by at least an inch of extension tube.

pathfinder · January 31, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12129&is=USA

Someone suggested this a while back, and I said no. But it is relatively light, focuses very fast. I went to FM, only drawback was the distance one had to be from the subject. Everyone liked it.

Someone here suggested it, I don't remember who. I am at the point now where I would try it. I hear on the 300 lenses, it is just that the excitement level can't get high for me, as mine goes to 300, the shots might not be good, but I know what 300 looks like. However I will keep that in mind.

What do you all think about the primes, and this one in particular?

ginger

Ginger - I would be cautious about buying ANY lens with a maximum aperature of f5.6, but especially long telephotos. You CAN augment light for a wide angle with flash, but it is harder for a long telephoto. F5.6 will be at the limit of the AF sensors in a 20D. It will work well in bright sunlight, but in low overcast or before or after sunrise it won't work well at all. F4 does not sound that much faster than f5.6, but it sure helps AF quite a bit. And the view finder is twice as bright too!!

ginger_55 · January 31, 2005

Pathfinder, I feel so stuck. Because of the financial limitations, I can't do anything except keep using my 75-300, and that is not advised either.

I have been on ebay. dpreview, FM, Amazon.... read everything posted and all links.

I just don't think there is anything I can do......

ginger

DoctorIt · January 31, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

Pathfinder, I feel so stuck. Because of the financial limitations, I can't do anything except keep using my 75-300, and that is not advised either.

I have been on ebay. dpreview, FM, Amazon.... read everything posted and all links.

I just don't think there is anything I can do......

ginger

How is having $1000 to burn on glass = "stuck"?

did you look at the Sigma I recommended? WAAAAAY better than your 75-300, within your $1k budget (with room to spare), and longer than the 70-200 f/4 Canon.

ginger_55 · January 31, 2005

I have to admit that i didn't, I will now. I so wanted a 400. But I will check it out.

ginger

ginger_55 · January 31, 2005

I looked at it and printed the info out. You may have given me valuable info, Erik. Sometimes I guess I get stubborn. Wanted a Canon, wanted a 400. But this may be just what I need. Am going to read what people say, just to hear them. Can't order it until..............the check is in the bank. But I might be able to sleep at night.

Which extender would you order, the Canon? And this is a really dumb question, but how long would that make it. Multiplying by 1 confuses me.

ginger (just a progress report)

mercphoto · January 31, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

Which extender would you order, the Canon? And this is a really dumb question, but how long would that make it. Multiplying by 1 confuses me.

I'm confused Ginger. Any number multiplied by one results in the same number you started with. As per which extender to recommend, I'd first recommend getting the new lens, trying it, then seeing if you need more reach or not.

marlinspike · January 31, 2005

You would be best served with the Sigma 1.4x extender since I don't think the canon would work (I think canon extenders only work with canons, sigma with sigma and canon, and the rest with everything). Oh, and that would make it 420mm.
Richard

DoctorIt · January 31, 2005

marlinspike wrote:

You would be best served with the Sigma 1.4x extender since I don't think the canon would work (I think canon extenders only work with canons, sigma with sigma and canon, and the rest with everything). Oh, and that would make it 420mm.
Richard

I was just gonna say that. Sigma 100-300mm + Sigma 1.4x TC is still under $1000. AND with that TC, you are at f/5.6, so equal to that of the prime 400mm.

marlinspike · January 31, 2005

It's $80 cheaper at digitalfotoclub than BH btw. I've never bought from them, but their resellerrating is 9.19, and they always seem to beat everybody's lens prices.
Richard

Except this time. It's another $24 cheaper (bringing it to $796) at deltainternational, which whiile only has 74 lifetime feedback on resellerrating, their lifetime rating is 9.97 (digitalfotoclubs was 9.29 IIRC, their 6 month was 9.19).
Richard

ginger_55 · January 31, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

I was just gonna say that. Sigma 100-300mm + Sigma 1.4x TC is still under $1000. AND with that TC, you are at f/5.6, so equal to that of the prime 400mm.

It sounds good. I did not find much on the lens, except, "of course we use it, it is a good lens". That kind of thing. But it sounds like a good lens.

I think this fitting my budget and all, unless someone knows something we here don't, I am going to sleep with this thought.

Thanks, g

oh, the math is starting to come back, too.
had to settle my mind down.

blackwaterstudio · January 31, 2005

Ginger while canon makes some awesome lens, Sigma does to. Somewhere I seen a campare test between the Canon 70-200L f/2.8 and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and didn't post which lens took the picture. I was hard pressed to tell the diffrence any both.

I found the link for you Ginger.
Sigma vs Canon

luckyrwe · January 31, 2005

I have the Canon 400/5.6. I got it because I needed reach and the 300/2.8 is not what I want to buy right now. I had owned the Nikon 400/2.8 and other 400 and 500 lenses. This one, for a 5.6, is very good. Slower lenses typically get the nod for being only adequate. This lens has given me top notch results unexpectedly. Whe I get my 300 I may not sell it.

Yes I wish it'd focus closer for bird shots, but I make do.

Mongrel · February 1, 2005

Re: Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM...
I have the Sigma, and I purchased it from Delta International for $790 + S&H. I had no problems whatsoever with them, and shipping was fast and the lens was well packaged.

I use this lens with the Sigma 1.4x EX APO tc with great success. The only noticeable drawback is the loss of one stop (f/4 to f/5.6). I honestly haven't noticed any lag in auto focus speed or problems with AF accuracy. I haven't used any of the Canon L zooms so I can't comment on how it compares to them.

I posted a few sample shots from this lens and tc combination but I'll throw a couple more in here.

This is with the 1.4x tc, but at around 116mm\163mm (w\tc). Canon 20D:

300mm no tc:

I have others, just not online yet. If I can get them uploaded soon, I'll post them.

400 Prime Canon?

Comments