[M_Six]

Wanna sell the 70-200?

[Chewy734]

nope, sorry Mark. I love that lens. It's light weight and does what it does very well. I just miss the extra zoom sometimes.

[M_Six]

Need a 15% off code for the refurb store?

[Chewy734]

You should buy the 70-200mm f/4L IS from them using the coupon.

[M_Six]

It doesn't save me much thanks to the ridiculous 8.75% sales tax in this state. Besides, with the Vegas trip just behind me and Christmas just ahead, I'm strapped.

[oneintheory]

im deciding between the 50L and the 24L this season. blah. i'd love to switch to all primes and 24 is a focal length i don't yet have in prime. and i don't think i'll really benefit much from the 1.2 over the 1.4, i'd rarely shoot wide open and i don't know how much sharper it is at studio apertures.

[vachss]

I must have dumped more on Canon gear in the last few years than I did to buy my Z4, but do they send me a lousy discount code... NOOOOO. Of course, I'm not really looking for gear right now, but it's the principal of the thing....

Anyway, I actually like the 300/4IS quite a lot on the 5D2. It works very well with the 1.4x as well. I believe the 70-200II + 1.4x may produce results similar to the bare 300/4, but I'd be surprised if the 70-200 + 2x equals the 300 + 1.4. It's this latter combo of 300 + 1.4x that really needs comparison with the 100-400 since many folks are looking for the cheapest way to get a sharp 400mm.

My comparison:
1. The 100-400(@400mm) and 300/4 + 1.4x are about equally sharp - good but not perfect wide open at f/5.6, excellent by f/6.3-7.1 (assuming a good copy).
2. The 300 + 1.4 gives a true 420mm focal length while the 100-400 maxes out at a measured 380mm or so.
3. The 300 + 1.4 focuses significantly closer than the 100-400 and is very useful for quasi-macro - butterfly/dragonfly kind of shots.
4. All that said, the 100-400 is a zoom and if you are shooting a variety of different sized critters in quick succession (e.g. a zoo) a zoom is MUCH more convenient than a handful of primes.

[M_Six]

I just signed up for some Hush Holiday Promotion a month or two ago and they've been emailing me about "deals." Although most are nothing to write home about. I'm hardly a Canon preferred customer.

But if anyone wants the code, just let me know.

[The1]

Ashu, really all comes down to what you plan to do with the lens, if you're perched waiting for wildlife to cross your path, the 300 would be the one to choose.

but life on it's own, the 100-400 on the FF is a nice lens. That being said, it doesn't get much use still. My 70-200 F2.8 gets a fair amount of play on the FF. But if I want zoom, I tend to crop for it rather then reach for my 100-400 and make the switch.

I find after using a lot of lenses with constant F stops, the ever changing wide zone is something i'm always having to take into consideration that it might change on me when i'm not paying attention.

I'll never regret buying the 100-400, it is very sharp, and i have fun when i do pull it out and use it. But it's also pretty rare when i do. It's a very large investment to make for a lens that gets as little use as it does.

And i find it's really only for sports and wildlife that it gets pulled out at this point, anything else, I have the 70- 200 and just walk a few steps closer. That's something i've gotten used to more in recent times. It's amaizing what 10 steps and a 200mm will do.

The full reach of a 400mm when used for shooting something a long way away is lost because of atmospheric distortion and pollution.

Again, I love it. I would likely buy again, but it wouldn't be #1 on my to do list.

[panicos81]

hey guys, when you know you want to shoot something in black&white, do you shoot it directly in B&W or you do it in post? which is better and why?

[dawiyo]

Originally Posted by panicos81

hey guys, when you know you want to shoot something in black&white, do you shoot it directly in B&W or you do it in post? which is better and why?

Save the processing for post. You never know if you may like that shot better in color. Don't limit yourself.

[Chewy734]

does anyone know the name of that Canon professional program where you can join to get a complimentary cleaning, etc?

[gcochard]

Originally Posted by panicos81

hey guys, when you know you want to shoot something in black&white, do you shoot it directly in B&W or you do it in post? which is better and why?

My brother (a cinematographer) always says to do B&W in post since you can use all the channels for your highlights and shadows, giving the picture a much more dynamic look.

In fact, he did color to B&W in post on this film: http://cochard.net/reel.php?v=ywal

[The1]

I did stupid..... While on my trip, I stopped at a realatives place and they asked a quick favor of me, and since it was something time related and needed no processing, i switched my camera off of RAW and onto JPEG. for 2 pictures.....

So, turns out that about 100 pictures later, i've been exposing to the right and shooting specifically with the intent of prepping pictures for post processing as opposed to trying to get the perfect shot every time, only to find....

I left the camera on JPEG.... so now all my colours are a bit funny and the quality of the pictures just isn't normal, and i've lost all my processing power, so i have a bunch of lansdcape shots where they are all basically slightly over exposed.

woooohoooo.

[adrean8j]

Originally Posted by The1

I did stupid..... While on my trip, I stopped at a realatives place and they asked a quick favor of me, and since it was something time related and needed no processing, i switched my camera off of RAW and onto JPEG. for 2 pictures.....

So, turns out that about 100 pictures later, i've been exposing to the right and shooting specifically with the intent of prepping pictures for post processing as opposed to trying to get the perfect shot every time, only to find....

I left the camera on JPEG.... so now all my colours are a bit funny and the quality of the pictures just isn't normal, and i've lost all my processing power, so i have a bunch of lansdcape shots where they are all basically slightly over exposed.

woooohoooo.

That is the exact reason I just went ahead and got a "vacation" memory card (PNY SDHC 32gb Class 10) and just shoot in RAW +L all the time (unless I am shooting some action type shots).

[TL]

speaking of raw images,
I shot this raw image at around 4:30pm with my Nikon D7000 with my 35mm f/1.8 handheld:
1/15sec
f/8
ISO 800
Does your raw pics look this grainy?



TIM_3049 by GQjai, on Flickr

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

If you had to chose between the EF 300mm f/4L IS or the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, what would you choose and why? The reason I'm considering either is because I feel like the telephoto capabilities on my 70-200mm f/4L IS isn't enough on the full-frame.

Btw, this would go on a 5D2.

The 300mm is sharper than the 100-400mm, even with the 1.4x TC. Once you get out past the reach of your 70-200mm plus TC, then you tend to want reach, not "versatility". If you could find a good, used 300/2.8, I'd suggest that with both TCs for true reach.

Depending on what you're shooting, even 600mm can seem short on the 5D2.

Dave

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by dcstep

The 300mm is sharper than the 100-400mm, even with the 1.4x TC. Once you get out past the reach of your 70-200mm plus TC, then you tend to want reach, not "versatility". If you could find a good, used 300/2.8, I'd suggest that with both TCs for true reach.

Depending on what you're shooting, even 600mm can seem short on the 5D2.

Dave

Dave, I don't know about that. From what I see, the 100-400mm is noticeably sharper at 400mm than the 300mm + 1.4x.

The 300mm f/2.8L costs 6x as much and doesn't have IS... I'm not quite baller status like you Dave.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

does anyone know the name of that Canon professional program where you can join to get a complimentary cleaning, etc?

Canon CPS - I may join this myself just for the cleaning service.

http://www.cps.usa.canon.com/

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by TL

speaking of raw images,
I shot this raw image at around 4:30pm with my Nikon D7000 with my 35mm f/1.8 handheld:
1/15sec
f/8
ISO 800
Does your raw pics look this grainy?



TIM_3049 by GQjai, on Flickr

Damn, Tim. I've read that the D7000 is supposed to be noise free to 1600. That grain can be fixed in PS, but I'm surprised it's there at all.

[vachss]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Dave, I don't know about that. From what I see, the 100-400mm is noticeably sharper at 400mm than the 300mm + 1.4x.

Both these lenses have a reputation for sample variation. Enough so that, even though my 300+1.4x seems sharper than the 100-400s I've played with, I just tell folks that the two are more or less the same. If you get a good copy they probably are.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Canon CPS - I may join this myself just for the cleaning service.

http://www.cps.usa.canon.com/

Thanks Mark, I found it. Surprisingly, I'm above 50 points already. I just don't feel like spending the money on the Platinum level... the Gold level is more feasible.

Originally Posted by vachss

Both these lenses have a reputation for sample variation. Enough so that, even though my 300+1.4x seems sharper than the 100-400s I've played with, I just tell folks that the two are more or less the same. If you get a good copy they probably are.

Thanks. Sounds like the 24-70 and 24-105 debate.