Guest Tess32 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I am in L-ove, Canon 100-400 L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubiton Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Except it weighs about 10 tonne so you need to build up the muscles and technique to lug it and the stick around. Does take nice pics though once you get use to using the stick (though said monopod can be handy when you have to stand as a leaning pole too as long as you dont lean too hard on it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Actually I don't find it that heavy at all. I used the 70-200 2.8 the other week and didn't find that hard either, and that is quite a bit heavier. The push pull zoom is WEIRD....but think I will get used to it. Hate monopods and tripods I took some sample pics today and I hand held at 400mm and at 1/80 so pretty good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubiton Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 You definately get used to the push pull zoom. I've found that after using it for a few months when I had that lens on the monopod it was automatic to use the push pull zoom but with the smaller one for racing easy to revert to the turn zoom. But it does take a while before you just do it rather than having to think about push pull and which is closer and further away. Thats the only big heavy lens I have as it is very difficult to use the monopod at the races so I go with the 70-300 black IS lens for that so it can be all hand held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirislin Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Can we see some pics????? Please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I will when I take some, hehe.....just took photos of dog toys sitting on the lawn to see how far 400mm is, heheh. I'm hoping to go to the zoo on Saturday so will see how it is then. I was relieved it isn't THAT heavy.....though I think people exaggerate a little with the 70-200 2.8's, hehehe. I had heard the IS doesn't work that great but hand holding at 400mm at only 1/80 or so is pretty good for me. Now I just have to see how it performs at the zoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) That is a serious f*ck off lens. I wish Canon made those L lenses in black. I hate the way they stick out when stuck on your camera. Makes me feel nervous carrying it around alone in a city after dark, it still stands out. :rolleyes: Edited March 12, 2009 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 It's big enough to bash someone up with it, hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) It's my OH who calls my white lens that. "Oh great, out comes the big f*ck off lens" he'll say as I open up my backpack. :rolleyes: Eta: and as you know, I only have the 70-200! Does anyone have those Lowerpro black camera backpacks? They are great. They don't look like you are carrying camera gear in them and have a chest strap which sits above your boobs and a padded waist strap. Pretty comfy for hiking around and holds a bit of kit. I've got the Nature Trekker one. Edited March 12, 2009 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rugerfly Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Tess, I've carted a D3 and a 80-400 around for a while now, you do get used to the weight, but the D3 is a big heavy camera too. Cant wait to see some pics. How weird that it is a push pull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashanali Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Does anyone have those Lowerpro black camera backpacks? They are great. They don't look like you are carrying camera gear in them and have a chest strap which sits above your boobs and a padded waist strap. Pretty comfy for hiking around and holds a bit of kit. I've got the Nature Trekker one. Yes, we have one that I make Alex carry when we go to weddings (camera gear weighs alot :rolleyes: ). It's great because he can keep shooting without having to put the bag down. We are changing to a bag with rollers though. With the amount of gear we are accumulating just for weddings it's all getting a bit much to carry. Tess - I'd love that lens but I'm a wuss and have unsteady hands. I'd need a monopod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Welcome :rolleyes: I love my 100-400, though I do think it's a heavy beastie! I only hand hold - don't even own a tripod (think I have a monopod somewhere, but no idea where) - and even I can do pretty well with it. I still bitch about the weight tho hehehee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PooMother Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Tess what lens did you have before if you dont mind me asking please? We have the Canon 40D and have the EFS 17-85, am wanting to get a alens tht will enable me to not be on top of any subject I m wishing to photograph. Considering the 300mm and the 400 as above. Trying to search to see if if I can find some shots to see the dif :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I had the 70-300 IS, which was ok but I sold that for the 70-200 F4 L which is great but too short for the zoo. It was TERRIBLE weather yesterday but i still took it out to the zoo and the 100-400 was great. Slower to focus than the 70-200 but then, it was dark, raining and stormy so what can you expect. It is pricey though, about $2300 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I love my 70-200 f/4 L but as I'm interested in bird photography, sometimes find it a bit limiting. I can sneak up on some wild birds but find for flight shots, it's just too short. I was going to buy the Sigma 150-400 but decided where I was supposed to be going right now (had to postpone it) my 70-200 would be enough for the birds there so bought a Sigma 10-20 just for the landscapes I could have photographed. However, I still haven't tried it out and I've had it almost a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I took it to the zoo on the weekend and wow, you really cannot beat 400mm. It was pouring with rain, stormy and dark, and I had to handhold at 1/25 @400mm to get any shot, and it got it (and I am not that steady). I got shots there is NO WAY I'd be able to get with a 70-200. It's a bit slower to focus than that one but it got me some great shots through awful weather conditions so.....impressed...hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirislin Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 How about showing us some pics from this little beauty. After my shots yesterday I wonder if I need this lens or the 70-200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I will tonight....even though it was raining I still ended up with 200 photos, hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubiton Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Its a brilliant lens but really unless you are deriving an income from it so it pays for itself or have money to throw away I wouldnt buy it in comparision to the black 70-300mm IS which is at least half the price. I planned to buy one 6 months before I actually purchased it and as a professional photographer of equestrian I had planned the exact things I would use it for (its too big and heavy for racing but perfect for Royal shows, dressage, showing and Aust 3DE). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Maybe....I sold the 70-300 IS because it was annoyed me so much and I haven't regretted it. There's more of a similarity between that and the 100-400 though than that and the 70-200's. There's plenty of amateurs who will still invest some serious money into their gear though....I doubt I'll sell enough to ever make up the coinage! But it aint cheap at $2300... Can't beat the range though if that's what you're after. Pity it's not 100-400 2.8 but then it would cost a house and probably be the size of one, hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now