400mm f/5.6 OR 100-400mm ? Hellow I'm interested in wildlife & Birds photography .. and I do care about sharpness the 100-400mm OR prime 400mm should I choose ? Please help 400mm f/5.6 OR 100-400mm ? Hellow I'm interested in wildlife & Birds photography .. and I do care about sharpness the 100-400mm OR prime 400mm should I choose ? » Read More 400mm f/5.6 OR 100-400mm ? Hellow I'm interested in wildlife & Birds photography .. and I do care about sharpness the 100-400mm OR prime 400mm should I choose ? Please help « Show Less
473926
I'm getting ready to order the 400mm. I already have the 70-200L 2.8 IS and if I wanted the extra reach with zoom, I could put my 1.4x teleconverter on it, making it a [roughly] 100-280 f4.0. I don't have the 100-400 to compare, but I'd guess the sharpness is about the same between the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 1.4x. I still wouldn't have the reach between 280-400 but I'd have the sharpness when I need it. I can always attempt to move my feet to frame a subject with a prime if I'm too close. Read the reviews and decide for yourself.
473927
I have the Canon 100-400 lens and I borrowed my friends 400mm lens for a week. The 400mm lens is a little sharper than my 100-400 lens and seems to focus faster. I still like my 100-400 lens because of the versatility. The 400mm lens take a minimum of 12 feet to focus and the 100-400 will focus at around 6 feet. The 400mm lens is sealed but the 100-400 lens because of the push/pull zoom will over time allows some small dust particles to enter lens. If all you are going to use it for is wildlife, then you can not go wrong with the 400mm prime.
473928
I have owned both lenses, still have the 400 prime. It focuses faster and more accurately, is sharper and light. With good technique and the right settings on your camera the results are pleasing. I hated the push/pull zoom of the 100-400. The only thing I miss is the IS, but if you spend most of your time photographing birds in flight you don't use IS anyway. I bought it used for $1030 and it is a gem.
362714
If you are going to be using the lens for wildlife and bird photograpy, chances are the zoom is going to spend all its time at the 400mm setting. That being the case, the 400mm prime lens is cheaper, lighter and sharper. Unless you can actually afford one of Canons "big" 400mm lens (which are $3-5K more), the 400mm f5.6L is probably your best choice.
768837
Depends if you plan on ever switching to full frame. I find 17-18mm the widest I normally go since I shoot people and too wide isn't flattering. If you are shooting landscapes then any of these will do since you want to stop down the aperture anyway. I love the 18-35mm sigma, I get the isolation from the blur that I need to create my artistic images. I never take it off anymore.
678604
The f4 is a super good all around lens and pretty nice for wildlife etc. More of an outdoor lens. If you're more indoor, portrait, etc, go for the 2.8. It is much larger however. I went with the f4 first because it gives more range of use.
1069238
I can't speak to that, but I'm fairly finicky about the glass I use (I mostly shoot olympus m4/3 primes), and I really like this 75-300 lens. With good light, you can get some stunning images of wildlife, landscapes, and the moon! I've even used it indoors (with the olympus 600r) and gotten some fantastic shots as well. Olympus used nice glass in this lens. While it's not going to be on my camera every day, it's great for specific applications.
427330
A 85mm F1.4 if is for full frame cameras in my personal opinion would be a great great lens to use for portraits. Expect to heve more head-shoulders type of portraits inside buildings due to 85mm and not being able to be far enough from the person you are taking the photo to capture more of the body but it should be more than enough.
1680732
It's OK, but you are looking at f4.5 rather than 1.4 or 1.8 with a prime. Plus, you get a sharper image with a prime. If you are a pro, stick with the prime. You will probably get fewer keepers on a camera like a D800 if you are looking for details. For casual its fine.
464455
The 18-55 is a great lens, but the 23mm prime is a magic lens. Since I've acquired the 23mm I hardly use my 18-55. Maybe it's still the honeymoon phase, but I just love the 23. It renders images in a different way than the 18-55, and the speed/DOF of 1.4 really does make a difference.
1429336
It depends on what you want to do. If you are mostly into landscape or sunsets then no you probably want to get a wide lens. I would suggest getting either the 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4.0 L lens.However, if you want to take picture of "people minding their own business" (for lack of a better term), this would be a pretty good choice. You can be standing at some 20 ft away and still capture the emotion. Do not forget however F/4 is not that fast, in order to capture a crisp image you might end up having to boost up the ISO to ISO-800 unless it's a really sunny day.
36978
I was in a similar situation, and after trying all the options for a few weeks decided on the primes mostly for size and weight reasons. This lens is tiny for an f/2.8 zoom, but it is big and heavy compared to most other m4/3 lenses.UPDATE: After my latest vacation, constantly switching between primes, I've reconsidered my decision. I sold two of my primes and got the 12-40 again.
1625587
Most reviews I have seen give the 11-16 a bit of an advantage in image quality, especially at f/4. The range of 12-24 would be an advantage to me.
1967330
The 25 will get you a larger( closer) image than the 12. It really depends on what you want the image to be. I'm using the 25, But mainly on my 100-400 telephoto so I can focus closer on small wild life. My lens only focuses down to about 6 feet. the 25 lets me get as close as 2, Not really macro work but it suits my needs. Hope that helps.
2219452
I agree with "sammy". Even if you get close enough to your target, whether through the use of a blind or other means, the lens quality from the 70-300 to the EF series lenses is considerable. Lens quality aside, the ability to "get close" without "being close" is one of the keys to great wildlife photography. The further away from an animal or bird you are, the more likely it will remain calm and stick around. While most of the Canon fixed telephoto lenses in the EF series remain out of reach for all but the dedicated professional, the zoom lenses in the series are reasonably priced and provide excellent results. Additionally, the extra 100mm on the 100-400 will prove to be very useful, especially around skittish wildlife like hawks and other raptors, and dangerous big game such as bears, elk and moose.
622728
The kit zoom lens is f 3.5-5.6 depending on the focal length it is set at. It's a good snapshot lens. No kit lens is as good as prime lenses in my opinion.
36984
I was in a similar situation, and after trying all the options for a few weeks decided on the primes mostly for size and weight reasons. This lens is tiny for an f/2.8 zoom, but it is big and heavy compared to most other m4/3 lenses. UPDATE: After my latest vacation, constantly switching between primes, I've reconsidered my decision. I sold two of my primes and got the 12-40 again.
1746184
I have been using both the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM and the EF400mm/5.6L USM lenses. I mostly do birding and other animal photography, as a hobby. The EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM has more flexibility in ranges and the image stablization is deffinately a plus. The EF400/5.6L USM dosen't have the image stablization, but has the longer range and can be used with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, while the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM is not listed as compatible with either extender. I find both lenses produce good quality pictures. Usualy I use either a monopod or tripod. I have not used the 70-300 IS NON-L so I do not know how it compares with the others. RB I have been using both the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM and the EF400mm/5.6L USM lenses. I mostly do birding and other animal photography, as a hobby. The EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM has more flexibility in ranges and the image stablization is deffinately a plus. The EF400/5.6L USM dosen't have the image stablization, but has the longer range and can be used with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, while the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM is not listed as compatible with either extender. I find both lenses produce good quality pictures. Usualy I use either a monopod or tripod. I have not used the 70-300 IS NON-L... » Read More I have been using both the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM and the EF400mm/5.6L USM lenses. I mostly do birding and other animal photography, as a hobby. The EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM has more flexibility in ranges and the image stablization is deffinately a plus. The EF400/5.6L USM dosen't have the image stablization, but has the longer range and can be used with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, while the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM is not listed as compatible with either extender. I find both lenses produce good quality pictures. Usualy I use either a monopod or tripod. I have not used the 70-300 IS NON-L so I do not know how it compares with the others. RB « Show Less
2059967
The lens has a maximum aperture of f4, if the lighting is really poor, a lens with a maximum f2.8 or 1.4 would give more flexibility. This is a nice lens and good for portraits but a prime ens may be better in there circumstances. I use a 50mm f1.4
2187919
I am not really a very good bird photographer but my wife is an avid birder so I tag along. I bought the 100-300 specifically to photograph birds and I can say as unskilled as I am the lens got me some very fine photographs. I would definitely think you would be happy with it for shooting wildlife. (Compared to a full frame DSLR optic the thing is a feather.)