I'm using also for video, handhold IS is ok, but on tripod it's a disaster, with IS on, the image starts so shift away in random directions, so for video purposes turn off the IS.To be fair, the extensive brochure which comes with the lens says that you must switch IS off when using the camera on a tripod. I keep forgetting that it has an IS mode 2 when panning moving subjects.
I'm using also for video, handhold IS is ok, but on tripod it's a disaster, with IS on, the image starts so shift away in random directions, so for video purposes turn off the IS.To be fair, the extensive brochure which comes with the lens says that you must switch IS off when using the camera on a tripod. I keep forgetting that it has an IS mode 2 when panning moving subjects.
The Canon 100-400mm is the next toy in my list. I wonder if there is any new version of it being expected soon, so I should wait. Does anyone have any information?
This happened last year with the 100mm macro. I opted to get the latest version and it was costing the same I would have paid for the previous model one month before. Even if I get the current version, I would save if I wait a little bit more (but my Christmas tree would be empty...)
Yes, I know the IS-tripod fact, but there are situations when IS may be needed on tripod, especially when shooting HD video. The biggest problem of 5dmkII is that video is started with the set button, there is no other way. Pressing the button will shake the camera, no matter how gentle you do it.
And By The Way, I just can't wait to see the 200-400 with the built in extender (even if I hate extenders) Just because of the new design innovation.
Truly terrible at the 400 range, to the point of being unsharp. At 300 mil, the new 70-300L, is far superior. I traded the 100-400, for the new 70-300L, never regretted it.
Truly terrible at the 400 range, to the point of being unsharp. At 300 mil, the new 70-300L, is far superior. I traded the 100-400, for the new 70-300L, never regretted it.
Interesting that the new one has internal focusing, and maybe by moving the range down they avoid the soft at 400 issue.
You can shoot at 400mm (I don't anymore) by using a monopod or tripod and f/8 at least. By the time the lens gets to 350 it's pretty good. So it's realistically a 100-350. ;)
I don't know why the 70-300 IS/USM is lower price, I didn't read all the specs. Seems a pretty good replacement. I picked up a 35-350 and I actually like it better than the 100-400 maybe because of the range, but it's sure fun to be able to go from 35mm to 350mm when I'm walking around, without changing the lens.
Truly terrible at the 400 range, to the point of being unsharp. At 300 mil, the new 70-300L, is far superior. I traded the 100-400, for the new 70-300L, never regretted it.
Interesting that the new one has internal focusing, and maybe by moving the range down they avoid the soft at 400 issue.
You can shoot at 400mm (I don't anymore) by using a monopod or tripod and f/8 at least. By the time the lens gets to 350 it's pretty good. So it's realistically a 100-350. ;)
I don't know why the 70-300 IS/USM is lower price, I didn't read all the specs. Seems a pretty good replacement. I picked up a 35-350 and I actually like it better than the 100-400 maybe because of the range, but it's sure fun to be able to go from 35mm to 350mm when I'm walking around, without changing the lens.
Hi! well this is the new (white) 70-300L version, not a cheap lens but believe me, superb optics, no CA and extremely sharp att 300, full range.
Truly terrible at the 400 range, to the point of being unsharp. At 300 mil, the new 70-300L, is far superior. I traded the 100-400, for the new 70-300L, never regretted it.
Interesting that the new one has internal focusing, and maybe by moving the range down they avoid the soft at 400 issue.
You can shoot at 400mm (I don't anymore) by using a monopod or tripod and f/8 at least. By the time the lens gets to 350 it's pretty good. So it's realistically a 100-350. ;)
I don't know why the 70-300 IS/USM is lower price, I didn't read all the specs. Seems a pretty good replacement. I picked up a 35-350 and I actually like it better than the 100-400 maybe because of the range, but it's sure fun to be able to go from 35mm to 350mm when I'm walking around, without changing the lens.
Hi! well this is the new (white) 70-300L version, not a cheap lens but believe me, superb optics, no CA and extremely sharp att 300, full range.
Yes, I went and looked, internal focusing is something I like better than the trombone, push/pull. I finally got used to those, but never really liked them.
The 70-300 is less than the 100-400 if I wasn't clear on what I meant. For the small difference in price, and losing 50mm of distance, another 50mm of soft focus, PLUS adding the 70mm at the lower end. I'd say the 100-400 may be on the way out.
Another thing and I haven't seen the data yet, the 70-300 may be a big brother to the 70-200? So it's a "tweener" LOL
I'll keep the 70-200 just because it's so sharp and I'm waiting for the 200-400 because it matches what I shoot. I'm very happy with the 35-350 as a photojournalist lens. Around $1000 and the 70-300 is list at about $1600. (so I was wrong, looked at original "list" prices. The 100-400mm and the 70-300 are pretty much identical price right now.) Still the 70-300 offers more modern technology inside, which gives it a plus one.
Waiting for the release and price on that 200-400! Then I'm having a lens sale, if it's within affordable. Start going into the over $3500-$4000 range and I'll be doing without. f/4, promised release Nov. 2011 (seems that's been delayed due to weather) add the cost of a built in 1.4 extender. Unless there's something amazing, I don't see why not the price of a 200-400 plus an extender? $2000-$3000 but one of the rumor reviews says - $7500!
So let me review my ramblings. 70-300 good lens, good range, good price. 200-400 f/4 coming out any day now... the 100-400 f/4.5 is going to be overlapped with two other lenses, and I don't see why Canon would continue making it?
I picked up a 2X Canon converter and after reading reviews wasn't expecting much. Put it on my Canon 70-200mm and was really surprised at how sharp the images were even at f/2.8 (f/5.6). A good combo IMO.
there are two versions of 70-300, one cheapo which I have heard is pretty good, then you have the L -version, which ofcourse is the one Im talking about! (white). I dont know your expectations? but if you get a good sample, it will outdo the 100-400 and the 70-200L IS, mine did anyway and in every respect.
I picked up a 2X Canon converter and after reading reviews wasn't expecting much. Put it on my Canon 70-200mm and was really surprised at how sharp the images were even at f/2.8 (f/5.6). A good combo IMO.
I think the 100~300 design precludes use of 1.4 converter?
I picked up a 2X Canon converter and after reading reviews wasn't expecting much. Put it on my Canon 70-200mm and was really surprised at how sharp the images were even at f/2.8 (f/5.6). A good combo IMO.
Thinking along those lines ... and the T2i Sensor gives me that little extra reach.
[url]http://www.adorama.com/CA70300LU.html[/url] ([url]http://www.adorama.com/CA70300LU.html[/url])
Read the first review.
I picked up a 2X Canon converter and after reading reviews wasn't expecting much. Put it on my Canon 70-200mm and was really surprised at how sharp the images were even at f/2.8 (f/5.6). A good combo IMO.
Maybe you have the new one. I have the old 2X and I keep asking myself why I bought it. (OK I know, the 400 prime is an 800... 100-400 is a decent 600mm... and it does work, just not for anything where I'd want auto-focus) I think people miss the "only with L lenses" part and only with the faster lenses. Also it's marginal on the 40D and 20D, or older cameras, works best with the 1D series. All kinds of limitations. It does the job and for pixel peepers, like Micro shooters, it's probably going to be a fail.
For people shooting sports and wildlife, a few hundred for the 2x is much better than $10,000 for a 500mm lens. I'm willing to give up a little quality.
So what lens have you used it on and what camera? That makes a difference. I met up with a guy shooting a 1D Mark III and a 300mm f/2.8 and he says the auto focus doesn't work. It should on that combination, unless he has the older 300mm?
I also think that when you add more glass, it's bought to degrade the image some. Again for the $9500 savings, I'll suffer! :D
I might have included this one before, it's with the extender on a 100-400MM (I think? I doubt if I would have used the 35-350?) set for 285mm (I have the pins taped on the extender to fool the camera, it also fools the EXIF data) 320th @ f/5.6 ISO 100 - shot through a hole in the chain link fence.
I'd say it worked just fine. (larger version if anyone cares about seeing more pixels: [url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/gt2-race-start-pete-klinger.html[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/gt2-race-start-pete-klinger.html[/url]))
Back to the beginning. If I could get the 200-400mm with the built in 1.4 extender, it would eliminate my need for carrying the 70-200 - or owning, the 2x Extender, the 100-400, the 400mm. I could have the 35-350 and the 200-400/560 and I'm ready to Rock and Roll. 35-560 should be a suitable range for just about anything outdoors? 8)
When the great "L" lens and accessory sale comes up on FM Forums I'll post it here. LOL
I picked up a 2X Canon converter and after reading reviews wasn't expecting much. Put it on my Canon 70-200mm and was really surprised at how sharp the images were even at f/2.8 (f/5.6). A good combo IMO.
Maybe you have the new one. I have the old 2X and I keep asking myself why I bought it. (OK I know, the 400 prime is an 800... 100-400 is a decent 600mm... and it does work, just not for anything where I'd want auto-focus) I think people miss the "only with L lenses" part and only with the faster lenses. Also it's marginal on the 40D and 20D, or older cameras, works best with the 1D series. All kinds of limitations. It does the job and for pixel peepers, like Micro shooters, it's probably going to be a fail.
For people shooting sports and wildlife, a few hundred for the 2x is much better than $10,000 for a 500mm lens. I'm willing to give up a little quality.
So what lens have you used it on and what camera? That makes a difference. I met up with a guy shooting a 1D Mark III and a 300mm f/2.8 and he says the auto focus doesn't work. It should on that combination, unless he has the older 300mm?
I also think that when you add more glass, it's bought to degrade the image some. Again for the $9500 savings, I'll suffer! :D
I might have included this one before, it's with the extender on a 100-400MM (I think? I doubt if I would have used the 35-350?) set for 285mm (I have the pins taped on the extender to fool the camera, it also fools the EXIF data) 320th @ f/5.6 ISO 100 - shot through a hole in the chain link fence.
I'd say it worked just fine. (larger version if anyone cares about seeing more pixels: [url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/gt2-race-start-pete-klinger.html[/url] ([url]http://fineartamerica.com/featured/gt2-race-start-pete-klinger.html[/url]))
Back to the beginning. If I could get the 200-400mm with the built in 1.4 extender, it would eliminate my need for carrying the 70-200 - or owning, the 2x Extender, the 100-400, the 400mm. I could have the 35-350 and the 200-400/560 and I'm ready to Rock and Roll. 35-560 should be a suitable range for just about anything outdoors? 8)
When the great "L" lens and accessory sale comes up on FM Forums I'll post it here. LOL
Good point. I guess the version and camera it's on makes a big difference. I have the 2x vII on a 5DMII. I had the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I which was great but f/2.8 and 200mm were weak spots. I was really surprised when I got good results with the 2x converter. I picked up the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II lens and it is exceptional at every f-stop and focal length. Works great with the 2X converter.
I looked at reviews for the newer 2x vIII and seems the improvements are barely noticeable so I skipped it. Improvements between vI and vII are supposed to be pretty noticeable. I believe that autofocus works on f/2.8 lenses but not f/4 or above.