HELP NEEDED CHOOSING THE RIGHT TELEPHOTO LENS!!!

At 190mm f/4.5

4762651976_446802a8b7_o.jpg

Love it! Ok so this may end up being the one i go with...i should have also said that i will eventually get the mark iv and use that other than my T3i. I'm cool with the 1.6 crop til then. 2 questions though: does it really pump dust into the camera body? how does the USM compare to the 400mm L prime?
 
There is a big difference between an image from a soft lens that has been sharpened and one from a good lens that has been sharpened. Eventually you will learn to spot the differences. For now, just trust Bitter on the sharpness of the lens.
 
All have been sharpened in post except the first image that is 100% crop

Sharpening improves already sharp images, but doesn't help soft ones as much like what came from that 55-250mm which I also have. Which is soft, and frustrated me.

If you can real quickly, and i don't want to be asking too much but could you post a 100% cropped one and the same image but full sized that hasn't been sharpened in post?
 
Trying to show as much variety of situation as I can...

400mm f/8

4855434516_5b22f77b04_o.jpg




I think it focuses decently fast. I don't have an über fast focusing lens to compare with, so, I can't really say.
In the tubing shot, when I was shooting off a rough boat, I don't remember being frustrated by slow focus. I got a few good well timed shots with it. *shrug*
 
All have been sharpened in post except the first image that is 100% crop

Sharpening improves already sharp images, but doesn't help soft ones as much like what came from that 55-250mm which I also have. Which is soft, and frustrated me.

If you can real quickly, and i don't want to be asking too much but could you post a 100% cropped one and the same image but full sized that hasn't been sharpened in post?

Not at this time. Not near my library.
 
There is a big difference between an image from a soft lens that has been sharpened and one from a good lens that has been sharpened. Eventually you will learn to spot the differences. For now, just trust Bitter on the sharpness of the lens.

Alright i'll take your word on it, thanks :)
 
ok well i definitely appreciate the help and fast responses! Im new to the forum so i appreciate your guy's patience with me haha :)
 
All have been sharpened in post except the first image that is 100% crop

Sharpening improves already sharp images, but doesn't help soft ones as much like what came from that 55-250mm which I also have. Which is soft, and frustrated me.

If you can real quickly, and i don't want to be asking too much but could you post a 100% cropped one and the same image but full sized that hasn't been sharpened in post?

Not at this time. Not near my library.

did i reply to you right? like, did you get the notification?
 
Love it! Ok so this may end up being the one i go with...i should have also said that i will eventually get the mark iv and use that other than my T3i. I'm cool with the 1.6 crop til then. 2 questions though: does it really pump dust into the camera body? how does the USM compare to the 400mm L prime?
By the nature of its design, yes. Just regularly clean your sensor. I would say it isn't worse than most normal handling and lens changing. I would assume if you are using it in a dusty environment, it may be worse.

I never used a 400prime to compare. For what I shoot, I couldn't live with being stuck at 400mm, like MLeeK.

100mm 2.8 macro is my other favorite lens, and I find that focal length more suitable to foot zooming, again, for th type of things I shoot.
 
MLeeK said:
I shoot sports and I'd need to go with the 100-400. I couldn't be left at 400 full time. I'd miss a LOT. I miss quite a bit even when I am at 70mm, but usually I'd be happy to lose the stuff that close to me for the added reach of the 400mm end of it.

Well id rather have a 70-200mm and 400mm. I always like to carry two camera lenses so you dont have to switch lense at important moments. For closer action you could have the 70-200 and a wide zoom. But thats just me.
 
The push pull takes a bit of getting used to. I personally prefer the zoom ring to the push pull, but its a good lens for the money. You can pick up used ones that look like new for $1200. The lens, btw, is actually sharper at the 400 end than the 100. Check the MTF provided by Canon: Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
 
Love it! Ok so this may end up being the one i go with...i should have also said that i will eventually get the mark iv and use that other than my T3i. I'm cool with the 1.6 crop til then. 2 questions though: does it really pump dust into the camera body? how does the USM compare to the 400mm L prime?
By the nature of its design, yes. Just regularly clean your sensor. I would say it isn't worse than most normal handling and lens changing. I would assume if you are using it in a dusty environment, it may be worse.

I never used a 400prime to compare. For what I shoot, I couldn't live with being stuck at 400mm, like MLeeK.

100mm 2.8 macro is my other favorite lens, and I find that focal length more suitable to foot zooming, again, for th type of things I shoot.

Would it be suitable for the beach? Now the sand is concerning me considering this fact. On the topic of the 100mm 2.8 macro, is it true that macro lenses like that are excellent for portraits as well?
 
I'm thinking about getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM after the 100-400mm, thats one I'm really going to love yet hate saving up for haha
 
You have to take the same precautions for all your equipment at the beach...but, I am not an expert on that, sooooo....

I don't shoot portraits, so there's that. I think the 100mm macro (not the L version) is a little slow focusing. But sure you could use it for portraits. Not sure how nice the bokeh is. Most people round hear highly recommend the 85mm (1.8?) for portraiture..
 
You have to take the same precautions for all your equipment at the beach...but, I am not an expert on that, sooooo....

I don't shoot portraits, so there's that. I think the 100mm macro (not the L version) is a little slow focusing. But sure you could use it for portraits. Not sure how nice the bokeh is. Most people round hear highly recommend the 85mm (1.8?) for portraiture..

Ok great, thanks! I think i've decided that i want the 100-400mm it seems best suited for me
 

Most reactions

Back
Top