Used 400mm AF Telephoto No Zoom

[dicklaxt]

I am in the market for a used 400mm Canon preferred but the budget will probably allow a Tamron ,Sigma,or Tokina more easily as long as it comes with a Canon mount and good for an EOS 40D

A 300mm Telephoto with a 1.4TC may also be acceptable.

dick

[dicklaxt]

Si ,I don't have a clue what a used 400mm is going for,if its an L series then its not in the budget(probably) and I just noticed your locale ,shipping may make it cost prohibitive also.My great grandfather was from the UK if that will make a difference
(LOL) Lincolnshire

dick

[coffee]

I don't know what your budget is for this Dick, but if you can swing a 100-400L from Canon, I would go for it. The max aperture is 5.6 at 400mm, but that is doable. I've shot is lower light and still got good results because it's got IS(image stablizing).

TC's are nice, I have one, and it will AF in very good light if you tape a series of contact pins, but you don't want to have to MF, you want something that will AF and work consistantly. The 100-400 works well on a 40d. And if you want more reach after that, maybe consider a TC for that lens.

If you really want a TC, I may consider selling mine. It is bran new but never really use it much.

[coffee]

I agree a prime has better quality than a zoom. And I agree that some pros do MF, but Dick is just getting into photography. He's pushing hard to learn hard and fast. Hey, if someone WANTS to shoot manual, that's great, but for someone just starting out, you might want to work your way up to MF if you choose. You don't want to HAVE to MF. You want options, and a TC might not give him both options. That was my point.

(IS) on the 1-400 has gotten great reviews, and I've seen what it can do. Again, if you can afford it I would get one. You can always turn it off if you don't have a need for it at the time, but in low light, at max zoom, if your not too steady, and when panning birds in flight, it is great.

[dicklaxt]

The L series new is not in the budget...The lens would be for inflight
birding so would need the AF in Shutter or P mode.

I have seen several shots taken with a 300 and a 1.4 TC and I am totally happy with that and a 400mm would be a plus.

This old timer will never be in the best known world of photograpers but had I started as a young man I would be the best now LOL,LOL,LOL Seriously tho I'm really ate up with this new found thing of cameras.Its better than sex at 73, smile.

dick

[coffee]

Hey Dick for what you want the lens for your going to have to use a monopod or tripod any way so MF would not present any problems and eventually make you a better photographer!

Si.

With all due respect, why do you need a mono or tri for birding? I find them very clumsy when you need freedom of movement. If you want to use a tri for birding, that's great, but it isn't mandatory to get great shots.

[dicklaxt]

I think I would be put in a difficult position trying to use a tripod for the Purple Martin flight maneuvers in my Colony. I expect to have 36 active nesting pairs and there is always a number of visitors. I have had as many as 150 birds in my small plot of 25 feet by 70 feet a number of times.Yes this is not a Pod of anykind atmosphere.

dick

[coffee]

For one thing a monopod will give the ultimate of image clarity ' no one is saying it's mandatory?? but for taking into account Dicks young age he will not have the steady--ist of hands , and not always if he wants quality images will he be able to achieve shutter speeds faster or the same as the lenght of the lens??? something very important ,, so taking this into consideration 400mm at 1/100 of a second on 400 iso will give him quality???

Further more there is more than 1 way to use a monopod ? it dont have to be on the floor you know ? lol. Have you not seen sport photographers , nature togs using monopods lol.

Si.

Yes, I agree with everything you said, but you can still get quality images without one. Taking a bird in flight at 400mm with shutter of 1/100 is no qarentee with or without a monopod. If 1/100 at 400mm is all you can get for a fast moving bird, you might want to pack it up for the day.

[coffee]

Here is a quote from Dicks thread. This is may I mentioned it.

"I think I would be put in a difficult position trying to use a tripod for the Purple Martin flight maneuvers in my Colony." Is this not fast moving?

The reason I'm discussing this is I'm trying to stay on subject with what Dick was asking about initially, and the reason for the thread in the first place. I'm not trying to augue with you. Just trying to help Dick best I can with the equipement he's asking about, and the questions he has.



Who says the exposure i quoted was for a moving bird? why would you wanna use 1/100 sec to stop movement of a bird? maybe other subjects but not a bird? lol

seems to me coffee you just wanna argue with anything i say , lets face it bud , slow shutters are quality and finding the balance for quality of a moving subject is a little more harder than AF Point and shoot photography?

Actually when i get five i will upload some bird shots at a feeder documented at 1/60 sec at f2.8 on a tripod? lol with a 20ft shutter release?

SI.

[ca7696]

Hi Joseph....sotty to jump in...but I have a question for you...in your opinion what do you think would be a better lense for me the canon 400mm or the canon 100-400 lens with IS.... It will be used for sports most of the time and probably at the 400mm range...Im thinking the 400mm but I was wondering if I needed the IS if im shooting sports at high shutter speeds...thanks

[coffee]

Hi Joseph....sotty to jump in...but I have a question for you...in your opinion what do you think would be a better lense for me the canon 400mm or the canon 100-400 lens with IS.... It will be used for sports most of the time and probably at the 400mm range...Im thinking the 400mm but I was wondering if I needed the IS if im shooting sports at high shutter speeds...thanks

I've only seen one side by side image of IS in action. And it does seem to work. The longer the lens, the more camera shake will come into play. Is IS beneficial even at high shutter, I think it is. You and your pocket book will have to make that determination.

Now about high shutter speeds. You have to remember that the 100-400 lens, at the long end, your best aperture is 5.6. So even in the best of light, you will be surprised that your shutter isn't as fast as you would think. Even in good light with this lens during birds in flight, I struggle to get 1/750. Fast, yes, fast enough, not always. So don't think you will always get such fast shutter that you take any camera shake out of the mix. You won't. I wouldn't even think about getting a teleconverter with this lens. I have a 1.4 and it won't focus with it. Do a search and you will read all about it the focus issue and the fact that a TC will take away 1 or more stops of light thus lessening even more your shutter speed.

You will always get better quality with a prime than a zoom lens. So if you can tell the difference between two quality lenses, and need it, I would go with the 400 prime. The zoom has it's pros though. Try achieving focus where you want it at 400. It's not easy cause you are at 400 and can't change it with a prime. With the zoom you can zoom out, figure out where you are, then zoom in fast again and get the shot. With birds in flight, it's hard enough finding the birds at 100 if they are close enough let alone 400. So the 100-400 makes it easier to get the subject in the frame faster. It also, obviously, has the ability to zoom out in the event you are too close for 400mm. So you have that too.

I struggled with which lens to get too and settled on the 100-400. I still love the lens.