[fitpanda]

If I want to buy a telezoom len, which one you guy prefer?
I am using 300D with Kit lens and EF50 1.8 II

I don't know whether the performance of 100-400 is good or not.

If I use 70-200 + 1.4x vs 100-400, which one you guy prefer?

Thank you!!!!

[gaiuswong]

兩支鏡重量,價位,用途都好似唔同喎,尤其價位,支EF 100-400 L IS 夠買兩支EF70-200 F4 L......EF70-200 F4 L加佐1.4x vs 100-400應該係EF 100-400 L IS 好d,何況佢仲有IS添,f5.6係400mm喎,但EF70-200 F4 L加佐1.4x 得320mm咋喎,加佐1.4x d 質素又差左.

[fitpanda]

gaiuswong:
1. EF 70-200 4L + EF 400 F5.6L
2. EF 100-400 F4.5-5.6
Then if I can afford either one proposal, which one u prefer?

[gaiuswong]

400mm對你緊唔緊要先,係緊要就悚EF 100-400 L IS F4.5-5.6啦, 質素絕對係唔錯,點都好過揹兩支鏡出街丫,同埋C記舊1.4X都成2K....

[ken l]

C記舊1.4X 2x $2700

[embu31]

如果成日要用400mm呢個位e.g.打雀，400/5.6一定靚過大白@400mm，始終變焦既方便令佢要犧牲光學表現係事實．如果唔駛f/2.8，一係買小小白加1.4x加300/4 IS，要映靚相呢個組合會好過一支大白．如果唔駛咁長，小小白+1.4x都係一個不俗但平好多既配搭！到第日有需要先加支300/4 IS！

[nlsho]

我選前者。
推拉變焦會吸塵。
100~400，同『級』﹝以4x長zoom計﹞之中的高級選擇，但畫質不及同廠70~200。且重、大。
1.4x質素極高，可放心使用。
超過300mm﹝以135計﹞，為弟極少用，因handle唔到。

[kkyy]

fitpanda,

It depends on your shooting needs too. I own all 3 lenses (70-200 2.8 IS), at 400mm, the prime is noticeably sharper than zoom if used optimally (i.e. handshaking ruled out). The bokeh is better for the prime too, sometimes the 100-400 produces parallel tram line like bokeh.

And if you are supposedly going for birding, you will be using the 400mm end most of the time, and the prime is much more portable. So option no. 1 has my vote.

Happy shooting.

kkyy

[gaiuswong]

"400/5.6一定靚過大白@400mm"
embu31兄: 此言差矣......響400mm 時最大光圈同都係F5.6,但支EF 100-400 L IS F4.5-5.6質素正過支定焦EF400mm f5.6架,跌眼鏡..大家都係L鏡zoom居然靚過定焦! 唔信?
參巧MTF chart:
EF 100-400 L IS F4.5-5.6~
http://www.canon.com.hk/tc/Product/Product.aspx?product_id=319&tag_id=10151
EF400 f5.6 L
http://www.canon.com.hk/tc/Product/Product.aspx?product_id=10010&tag_id=10124

[kkyy]

qaius,

I think the MTF charts clearly demonstrate the superiority of the prime.
The MTF for 400 prime stays near or above 0.8 (a cut off regarded as the standard of a superior lens) under different apertures, 10 or 30 lpm, and evenly from lens centre to the edge.
Far more frequently does the zoom show MTF< 0.6, a cut off showing sub-standard of the Zoom.
The diversity of the black and dotted lines of the zoom also corresponds to the unatural blur images, the characteristic bokeh that I referred to.

regards,

kkyy

[gaiuswong]

整体須然係支定焦較平均,但只計佢中心影像清析度啦,用tele len都係中心既影像清析較重要嗟!

[kkyy]

qaius,

Hope you don't mind if I clarify and please don't think that I am coming after you. :-)

In the 100-400 MTF, even right near the center, you can see the quick diversification of the solid and dotted black lines (not straightly correct but may be viewed as the orientation of the light pathway that is perpendicular and along the radius of the sensor)

In short summary, 散光 effect will be evident.

regards,

kkyy

[gaiuswong]

當然質素上都一定唔會係差好遠果隻啦,視乎係睇你點睇嗟,論体積重量光圈都差唔多,咁都係睇你點揀囉,

[nlsho]

Spend a few mintue to read~
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

[kkyy]

I agree 100-400 is a good lens too, that's why I own one. :-)

Both are for different shooting needs, one sharper, the other more flexibility. The IS also may help saving a pic that might not be possible with your prime.

Just hope the oiriginal poster can make his best choice.