[MaximusJ]

My 70-200 2.8 needs some work. Last weekend, (I should specify that it was frigging hot and humid, but didnt have any condensation issues so I dont know if its related) I think my VR didnt work for a short while and then later that day, my Autofocus completely died. Tried hours later and still no focus. But after 36h of sitting in the cool, it finally started to focus again.

I had to leave the fields before the end of the games so there's basically a part of the event I didnt cover. Luckily for me, I took so many that nobody knows. But I need my lens to be fully working; so a repair is needed.

So any NPS members in here?

By the rules, I cant join because I dont make photography for a living. But if its worth it, I might try harder. This is basically the only requirement that I dont meet.

[M_Six]

I bought a Canon 270EXII flash for my EOS-M. They make the 90EXII specifically for the M, but it's pretty limited. The 270 is a little more $$, but for the extra benefits I think it's well worth it. It has a metal foot instead of plastic and you can pivot the flash head up to bounce off a ceiling. It's also more powerful. It's slightly larger than the 90, too. But it's much, much smaller than the 430EXII. I ordered mine yesterday and got it today, courtesy of Amazon Prime.

Here's a comparison shot.

[spanner1751]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

god, I just love LR5's auto-leveling tools...

I just downloaded the 30-day trial of LR5 and I agree. Since most of my PSE work isn't very complicated, I can see that LR5 will be very useful.
I also downloaded the Capture one 6. Thanks for the coupon code

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by spanner1751

I just downloaded the 30-day trial of LR5 and I agree. Since most of my PSE work isn't very complicated, I can see that LR5 will be very useful.
I also downloaded the Capture one 6. Thanks for the coupon code

You may want to try DxO Optics Pro 8.2 if you'll be comparing. DxO pioneered Digital Lens Optimization and it very easy to use. It's biggest shortcoming is that it has no local adjustment tool; however, it's very intuitive to use and makes excellent files. The 30-day trial is free.

Dave

[spanner1751]

Originally Posted by dcstep

You may want to try DxO Optics Pro 8.2 if you'll be comparing. DxO pioneered Digital Lens Optimization and it very easy to use. It's biggest shortcoming is that it has no local adjustment tool; however, it's very intuitive to use and makes excellent files. The 30-day trial is free.

Dave

I'll give that try too, thanks.

[ddk632]

For those of you guys that shoot the long lenses, I have a question. I've noticed the Canon EF 400 f/5.6 is an oddball as far as pricing goes in the Canon "Super-tele" lineup.

My question is, besides the fact that it's f/5.6 and has no IS, any other reason why it's so cheap compared to the others?

The longest telephoto I have ever used is my EF 70-300 (variable aperture, non-L, has IS, was about $550 brand new). I have not many people who have a good opinion of this lens.

Just curious if the 400 f/5.6 is viewed similarly in the super-tele world, or if it's a great lens at a great price and has great IQ, but is just priced so low due to not having the wider aperture and IS?

Welcome any thoughts on the topic!

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by ddk632

For those of you guys that shoot the long lenses, I have a question. I've noticed the Canon EF 400 f/5.6 is an oddball as far as pricing goes in the Canon "Super-tele" lineup.

My question is, besides the fact that it's f/5.6 and has no IS, any other reason why it's so cheap compared to the others?

The longest telephoto I have ever used is my EF 70-300 (variable aperture, non-L, has IS, was about $550 brand new). I have not many people who have a good opinion of this lens.

Just curious if the 400 f/5.6 is viewed similarly in the super-tele world, or if it's a great lens at a great price and has great IQ, but is just priced so low due to not having the wider aperture and IS?

Welcome any thoughts on the topic!

It's one stop slower than the DO version, and 2-stops less than the non-DO version of that lens. Both of those lenses are a significant bump in price. If you compare this 400 mm f/5.6L with those two, I'd say they all have excellent glass and excellent IQ. However, the other two have IS and additional stops (if you need it). IS makes a huge difference especially when you're out at 400 mm on a FF (or 640 mm on an APS-C).

Personally, I wouldn't buy a super telephoto without IS. That being said, if you primarily (almost always) will use it on a tripod, then go for the 400 mm f/5.6.

To answer your question, yes... it's that much cheaper mainly because it doesn't have IS and is at f/5.6. You can read a review here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Additionally, to compare to the 70-300 mm lenses... it's like comparing apples to oranges. In this case, the L designation is significant. I used to have the 70-300 mm non-L, and in terms of IQ, my 70-200 mm f/4L IS runs circles around it. It's not even on the same playing field, imo. Not to sound like a douche, but if you're looking for the best IQ, go L or go home (it's true in 90% of the cases, and of course there are exceptions).

If you plan on selling your 70-300 mm, I recommend checking out the 100-400mm L IS lens. It's the only one in my collection with a variable aperture across all focal lengths, and I don't mind it. It's pretty sharp across the range as well. Additionally, the IS allows me to shoot handheld at 400mm without any issues.

I'm sure Dave, Ed, and others who shoot a lot of wildlife will chime in with their opinions and expertise.

[ddk632]

Thanks for the info, interesting to note. The 100-400L does seem to be more verstatile of course since its not a prime, I will check into it.

I would be shooting on either a monopod or a tripod, and the intended use would be for shooting motorsports such as car and motorcycle racing.

[M_Six]

I have the 400 5.6. Since I bought it I have rarely used my L-series 70-300. The 400 is tack sharp and focuses very quickly. It works quite well with my Kenko 1.4x and 2.0x extensions, too. There are two drawbacks to the 400 5.6. As Chewy mentioned, no IS means you need to learn good holding technique or use a tripod/monopod (which I do extensively). And secondly, the minimum focus distance is about 11.5 feet. That's a pretty good distance if you're using it to shoot bugs like I posted in the Pic-a-day thread.

My favorite way to use the 400 5.6 is on a monopod with the Wimberley Sidekick. This combo is light and easy to maneuver. I think it would work great for autosports. Using the Sidekick reduces the need for IS, except at very slow shutter speeds. With no IS, you have to keep in mind that you need to shoot 1/400 or faster or be using a tripod.

[ddk632]

The Wimberley Sidekick looks pretty cool for the swivel action. I would need a new monopod - the one I have is ancient, and cheap, with no option for a ballhead. I like the setup you have.

11.5 feet is not an issue for what I would shoot with it, and for the price it's good to hear of the quality. I wasn't doubtful since its a Canon but when comparing to the others it stands out being thousands cheaper than the next supertele.

When I shot the CCS races a few weekends ago, I disliked most images even at 1/800 shutter speed. I found them to not be that sharp. I was shooting with the XTi and an old Kenko 1.5x TC (which was discontinued in favor of the 1.4x TC). I cannot use it on my 6D, as it causes an error and the camera will not shoot even with manual focus enabled on the lens. Works fine on the XTi. I found that the shots at 1/3000 or faster were tack sharp no matter what, as I was shooting either handheld or with the camera sitting on a barrier.

To match the XTi + 1.5xTC at 300mm with the full frame 6D, which puts the effective focal length at 720, I would need the 400 and the 2x TC. However in reality, since I can crop off the 6D images, even just the 400 would suffice (compared to 450 on my XTi when taking out the crop factor). My preference would be to get the TC, because I believe that 800mm would yield much more detail vs. a cropped shot at 400mm.

This could be a nice "budget" 800mm super-telephoto setup for motorsports!

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by ddk632

For those of you guys that shoot the long lenses, I have a question. I've noticed the Canon EF 400 f/5.6 is an oddball as far as pricing goes in the Canon "Super-tele" lineup.

My question is, besides the fact that it's f/5.6 and has no IS, any other reason why it's so cheap compared to the others?

The longest telephoto I have ever used is my EF 70-300 (variable aperture, non-L, has IS, was about $550 brand new). I have not many people who have a good opinion of this lens.

Just curious if the 400 f/5.6 is viewed similarly in the super-tele world, or if it's a great lens at a great price and has great IQ, but is just priced so low due to not having the wider aperture and IS?

Welcome any thoughts on the topic!

You're right, it's a relatively old design with no IS and a relatively small aperture, making it inexpensive. If they simply added IS, I wouldn't be surprised if the price went up over $500. You can look at the big 400s to see what adding aperture does to the price and size.

Dave

[M_Six]

I have a 7D as well and still go for the 6D for most work with the 400 5.6. The higher ISO capability of the 6D allows me higher shutter speeds without noise or IQ quality issues. I don't miss the additional 1.6x crop factor.

My 400 5.6/Kenko 2.0x combo will occasionally AF, but for the most part it's manual focus only. If you can preset your focus, that shouldn't be an issue, though.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

My favorite way to use the 400 5.6 is on a monopod with the Wimberley Sidekick. This combo is light and easy to maneuver. I think it would work great for autosports. Using the Sidekick reduces the need for IS, except at very slow shutter speeds. With no IS, you have to keep in mind that you need to shoot 1/400 or faster or be using a tripod.

I've got a Sidekick, but have never tried it on my monopod. I've got a large ballhead for use on my tripod, but I just haven't thought to try it on the mono.

For light lenses, like the 400/f5.6 and the 100-400mm, I strongly recommend hand holding. Use a default ISO of 800 and you'll have plenty of shutter speed for most situations. You can react quickly when working hand held.

One situation where I do recommend a tripod or monopod is where you'll be in the ready position for a long time and you know where the subjects will be coming from. A race is a perfect example. Soccer, football and other big-field outdoor sports are great for tripods/monopods. I routinely hand hold my 500/f4 with the 2.0X TC attached, but I quickly die if I have to stay in the ready position for long without a brace or resting place. This is why I keep the tripod in the trunk of the car, even though I'll use it for only 1 in 1,000 shots.

Dave

[Itsed65]

I actually have both lenses (that is the 100-400 and the 400 5.6), and use them both quite a bit. It comes down to what I am photographing at the time. If it's birds, then usually I will have the prime, either on the 1D or the 7D. Mainly because I am usually far away and am going to crop anyway, so the zoom is irrelevant.

For just about anything else though, I really like the versatility of a zoom. At a race for instance, I can zoom in on the action and bring it out wider as the cars get closer. Same thing at a wildlife park or zoo.

I would have a hard time deciding which one to give up if I had too. I have many keepers from both. First world problem, I know.

[vachss]

Lens cost tends to depend on both optical/build quality and the shear size of the lens. Lenses with 3" front elements (like the 300/4, 400/5.6, 70-200/2.8) are all around the same size and weight and cost between about $1 and $2K - with the older lenses, unsurprisingly, being toward the cheaper end of the range. As folks have suggested on any number of forums, if/when the 400/5.6 is updated to include IS it too will no doubt be a $2K+ lens.

Start increasing the front element size to 4-6", though, and it's a whole new ball game. Lenses weigh 2-4 times as much as the 3 inchers, with some of that weight being big expensive Fluorite and UD elements. Add to that while the 300/4, 400/5.6 and especially the 70-200/2.8 are very sharp lenses, the 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 and 800/5.6 are simply the sharpest and best built lenses Canon produces. So current generation of big white superteles use 3-4 times as much glass as the 400/5.6, are 20 years newer designs, have IS and are built like main battle tanks. They're priced accordingly.

Like a lot of bird shooters I worked my way up slowly (200/2.8 + extenders, 400/5.6, 500/4.5) before I finally sucked it up and bought a 500/4IS. For all my whinging about price that was one lens that was entirely worth it. Just an obvious step up in IQ and usability compared all those previous attempts. I haven't tried a version II supertele yet and almost dread doing so. If the jump in performance is anything like what I found when I got the version I I may just have to suck it up again.

[dcstep]

I'll never forget the day that I moved from the 400/5.6 to the 500/4-IS. I felt guilty and like I was cheating. The IQ of those first images blew me away. Now, my technique is even better and I'm constantly astounded at the IQ, even with the 2.0X TC-III attached.

I grabbed the image below, showing a contestant in the bike portion of a triathlon that went by as I was shooting birds. The sharpness, contrast, color and quality of bokeh are world class, IMO. I laugh when I see some dumbass saying, "I don't use a TC on my lens because it degrades the IQ too much." How much frigging IQ do you want??? For me, nothing beats pixels on the subject, particularly when you're talking quality pixels, like in my 5D MkIII:


Biker 2 by dcstep, on Flickr

That's 1,000mm hand held at f/8, 1/1000-sec., literally a grab shot of somebody passing by.

[Weebl]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I'll never forget the day that I moved from the 400/5.6 to the 500/4-IS. I felt guilty and like I was cheating. The IQ of those first images blew me away. Now, my technique is even better and I'm constantly astounded at the IQ, even with the 2.0X TC-III attached.

I grabbed the image below, showing a contestant in the bike portion of a triathlon that went by as I was shooting birds. The sharpness, contrast, color and quality of bokeh are world class, IMO. I laugh when I see some dumbass saying, "I don't use a TC on my lens because it degrades the IQ too much." How much frigging IQ do you want??? For me, nothing beats pixels on the subject, particularly when you're talking quality pixels, like in my 5D MkIII:

I guess that would be me...
My 1.4xii does not want to co-operate with me more than 1/2 mile away with my 300/4. Anything closer than that is fine. The problem is that I do like to shoot stuff far away. With the 135 at any distance it works superbly.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Weebl

I guess that would be me...
My 1.4xii does not want to co-operate with me more than 1/2 mile away with my 300/4. Anything closer than that is fine. The problem is that I do like to shoot stuff far away. With the 135 at any distance it works superbly.

You're maginifying atmospheric distortion. Put a 800mm prime on your camera and shoot a bird 300-yards away across a lake on a warm day and it'll look like dog shit, even with a $14,000 lens.

I'm routinely shooting at 1,000mm, but hardly ever do I shoot something 1/2-mile away. You need really clear air for that to work. Early or late in the day, after a rain and a little breeze to blow out the haze, then you may have something.

50-miles away from the mountain and a little further to the moon. 700mm rig:


Moon set on a pink tinged Mt. Evans by dcstep, on Flickr

[Chewy734]

This is not a photo I took, nor is it me in the photo. But, talk about dedication... and major cajones.

I could see Dave being this dedicated to "getting the perfect shot".

[dcstep]

Oh, I forgot, don't buy the cheapest POS TC that you can find. If you're adding it to a high quality lens, then use a high quality TC. (Kinko makes some good stuff, but not all Kindos are the same high quality. All the Canons are high quality).

BTW, my EF 1.4X TC-II is for sale for $150. (The TC-III that replaced it costs $429!!).

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

This is not a photo I took, nor is it me in the photo. But, talk about dedication... and major cajones.

I could see Dave being this dedicated to "getting the perfect shot".

LOL.

Great, fun shot.

[Weebl]

Dave,
If I take the tele off, shoot without it and crop it, there is a noticeable difference. So, I'm starting to think that only at distance with the 300 it's funky.
It's a Canon 1.4xii bought new

Chewy,
at 800-1200 degrees, your body would say no way first.
You can walk on ~600 lava if you step carefully.