Photography Talk lenses

[Vas (Jack)]

This thread is dedicated for camera lens discussions.

Please do not spam the thread.

 

[Vas (Jack)]

Is anyone own Canon 100-400mm lens ? Was wondering how is the quality of it .

 

[Andy Smith]

I don't own one but have used the 100-400 L IS II, which is a fantastic lens. The original 100-400 IS L is good but the newer version is excellent.

 

[Vas (Jack)]

I don't own one but have used the 100-400 L IS II, which is a fantastic lens. The original 100-400 IS L is good but the newer version is excellent.

Is that enough reach for wildlife photography?

 

[Andy Smith]

Is that enough reach for wildlife photography?

It all depends on what wildlife you are imaging really.
If it is birds then it is good enough if you are close enough, meaning if the bird is 400 metres away then the lens will not really get enough in the frame of the picture. Ideally you need to be no more than 10 - 15 metres away or closer for birds.
No matter what wildlife you are shooting really, the closer you can get the more the subject will fill the frame, and therefore the more detail you get.

 

[Vas (Jack)]

It all depends on what wildlife you are imaging really.
If it is birds then it is good enough if you are close enough, meaning if the bird is 400 metres away then the lens will not really get enough in the frame of the picture. Ideally you need to be no more than 10 - 15 metres away or closer for birds.
No matter what wildlife you are shooting really, the closer you can get the more the subject will fill the frame, and therefore the more detail you get.

Thanks for your reply Andy Smith. I'm definitely not trying to get into proper wildlife. As is 100-400, not really sure how 400mm will be in terms of reach to the subject.

 

[Andy Smith]

Thanks for your reply Andy Smith. I'm definitely not trying to get into proper wildlife. As is 100-400, not really sure how 400mm will be in terms of reach to the subject.

To put in into perspective Jack, I have never really shot above 400mm for my stuff.
This is good enough for a football match, where the players across the width of the pitch will be big enough in the image, but across the length of the pitch they will be small in the frame.
400mm should get your subject large enough in the frame if you are not too far away. also depending on the size of your subject of course. if it's a mountain then you have no worries.

 

[Vas (Jack)]

To put in into perspective Jack, I have never really shot above 400mm for my stuff.
This is good enough for a football match, where the players across the width of the pitch will be big enough in the image, but across the length of the pitch they will be small in the frame.
400mm should get your subject large enough in the frame if you are not too far away. also depending on the size of your subject of course. if it's a mountain then you have no worries.

I already have 70-300my L lens, but when I go out there and I see a deer or other subject, I feel that I don’t have enough reach. And I’m thinking maybe selling my 70-300 and buying 100-400mm lens.

 

[Andy Smith]

I already have 70-300my L lens, but when I go out there and I see a deer or other subject, I feel that I don’t have enough reach. And I’m thinking maybe selling my 70-300 and buying 100-400mm lens.

have you thought about a 2x converter, I use one and it's great for me.

 

[Vas (Jack)]

have you thought about a 2x converter, I use one and it's great for me.

I was thinking about that, but I heard that you loose some aperture and quality.

 

[Andy Smith]

I was thinking about that, but I heard that you loose some aperture and quality.

You lose 2 stops of aperture with a 2x converter Jack, so a f/2.8 lens will become f/5.6. But unless you are shooting fast subjects in low light or indoors, you will not notice. Perfectly adequate for landscapes & wildlife most of the time.

 

[Vas (Jack)]

You lose 2 stops of aperture with a 2x converter Jack, so a f/2.8 lens will become f/5.6. But unless you are shooting fast subjects in low light or indoors, you will not notice. Perfectly adequate for landscapes & wildlife most of the time.

How much reach can you get with a 2x converter?

 

[Andy Smith]

How much reach can you get with a 2x converter?

You get 2x the focal length, so a 70-300 lens will effectively become a 140-600mm lens.

 

[Vas (Jack)]

You get 2x the focal length, so a 70-300 lens will effectively become a 140-600mm lens.

unfortunately I can’t fit converters on my 70-300L . But that’s good, in terms of reach.

 

[Andy Smith]

unfortunately I can’t fit converters on my 70-300L . But that’s good, in terms of reach.

Ah ok yes I forgot that that lens cannot use extenders. I guess your only option for more reach then is to get closer to the subject or swap that lens for a longer one.
The longest lens I have is the 70-200, and with a 2x converter makes it 400mm. I have never really felt the need for anything more except when trying to photograph distant galaxies or planets.

 

[Vas (Jack)]

Ah ok yes I forgot that that lens cannot use extenders. I guess your only option for more reach then is to get closer to the subject or swap that lens for a longer one.
The longest lens I have is the 70-200, and with a 2x converter makes it 400mm. I have never really felt the need for anything more except when trying to photograph distant galaxies or planets.

I'm thinking about 100-400 to start saving. Maybe in a year or two 😅.

What lens would you prefer to have for galaxies and planets? You'd better buy a telescope for that I guess.

 

[Andy Smith]

I'm thinking about 100-400 to start saving. Maybe in a year or two 😅.

What lens would you prefer to have for galaxies and planets? You'd better buy a telescope for that I guess.

Yep sort of looking for a decent telescope around 800mm for a start, or thinking along the lines of a good used 400mm prime, (or RF 100-500mm) with 2x converter, then I have a good long lens for wildlife when needed. A telescope could be used for wildlife also, but will not have auto focus so it becomes a challenge.

 

[Vas (Jack)]

Yep sort of looking for a decent telescope around 800mm for a start, or thinking along the lines of a good used 400mm prime, (or RF 100-500mm) with 2x converter, then I have a good long lens for wildlife when needed. A telescope could be used for wildlife also, but will not have auto focus so it becomes a challenge.

I've read online that some photographers had issues with autofocus on their camera when using 100-400 lens with 2x converter. Not sure if that's the case, but seems that this need to be checked with your camera model.

 

[Andy Smith]

I've read online that some photographers had issues with autofocus on their camera when using 100-400 lens with 2x converter. Not sure if that's the case, but seems that this need to be checked with your camera model.

It depends which camera model Jack and the speed of the lens. Some camera's don't operate so quickly over f/8 with converters, and they seem to hunt for focus for a while due to lack of light they need to get the focus. Most are ok though these days as modern sensors are good in low light, and I would buy a fast (f/2.8) lens anyway because using converters on f/5.6 lenses limits the dynamic range due to losing the 2 stops of light.

 

[Vas (Jack)]

It depends which camera model Jack and the speed of the lens. Some camera's don't operate so quickly over f/8 with converters, and they seem to hunt for focus for a while due to lack of light they need to get the focus. Most are ok though these days as modern sensors are good in low light, and I would buy a fast (f/2.8) lens anyway because using converters on f/5.6 lenses limits the dynamic range due to losing the 2 stops of light.

Alright, not sure how the 100-400 will work on 7d m2 then. 🤔