|
|
|
Steve Tomkinson
{K:3243} 1/28/2005
|
Angela
You asked for my opinion so here goes...
The prime lens will be the absolute best you could hope for. It will be the sharpest & will focus extremely fast for moving subjects. However it will lack flexibility. If you were at an event and ended up too close, what would you do? How good are you at running backwards very fast??!!
I have only 3 months Canon experience & only 33 days 100-400L experience, so I think I'll wimp out slightly at this point! A couple of suggestions if you haven't already tried them:-
1. Register with www.fredmiranda.com and read their user gear reviews (here is a direct link to the Canon Gear reviews http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=45)
2. Register with Pbase and view photos taken with all the lenses to see if anything 'floats your boat' (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon) - scroll past the cameras to get to the lens-specific images.
One thing I will say about the 100-400 is that in bright sunlight it is amazing, but in dull conditions it can be a bit slow & also appear to lock on but actually be a little off-focus. When I say dull, I mean UK, January, grey sky. Hmmph.
If you are comfortable with it, email me at tommorules@ntlworld.com & I'll send you a couple of unprocessed images so you can have a look at them.
Will understand if you don't. I've had a lot of help in a short time from complete strangers, young, old, local & far afield; it would be churlish of me not to do the same!
Regards
Steve.
|
|
|
|
|
Angela Fox
{K:660} 1/28/2005
|
Actually, I was hesitant on that. I have a Canon 75-300mm, so I figured I had that covered. The prime lense is suppose to be of superior quality, hence the massive difference in price. I was going to go ask some questions before I made the purchase. I'd be happy to hear your opinion. What I want out of the lense is, larger angle lense than my 300mm, better for wildlife, (more zoom and better quality) and for taking photos of equestrians on the cross country course.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Tomkinson
{K:3243} 1/27/2005
|
Hi Angela, glad you have decided on a lense, of whatever sort. Any reason for choosing the prime over the zoom?
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Tomkinson
{K:3243} 1/27/2005
|
Hi Peter,
Both posts were of the same bird, I tracked it for about 5 minutes before I got clumsy & scared it off! So if the other is a wren, this is a wren. I understand there is another bird called a 'Dunnock' which looks a little like it and also is very small?
Regards
Steve.
|
|
|
|
|
Angela Fox
{K:660} 1/26/2005
|
I really like this photo Steve, I'll check in my bird book.
I have decided to take your advice and I am giving up my quest for the Mark II. (for this year...) I've called and inquired about a few lenses. I'm looking at the Canon EF 400 F4 L DO
IS USM. I really want the 2.8 but holy cow!!
Thanks for the input!!
|
|
|
|
|
Margaret Sturgess
{K:49403} 1/25/2005
|
SO so cute as well as an amazing shot.
Margaret
|
|
|
|
|
xxxIlonaxxxx xxxxKrijgsmanxxxx
{K:10405} 1/25/2005
|
This is what I like to do, but my camera is not made for this, if I go to close the bird will fly away, I need a super lens haha....wonderful shot Steve....I don't know what it is, it looks similar to a sparrow in Dutch "huismus" or "mus"
|
|
|
|
Gregory McLemore
{K:35129} 1/24/2005
|
A wonderful capture, excellent clarity and composing, a touch shot, well done.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Houtmeyers
{K:3519} 1/24/2005
|
Good one Steve.... but i dont think this is a wren. But your previous photo sure is a wren...i think. They usually hold their tail up when sitting.And they are shorter too.(more compact)
|
|
|
|
Len Webster
{K:25714} 1/24/2005
|
Looks like one to me but then I'm no ornithologist. Good photograph. I think the cage-like impact of the wire netting gives an additional dimension to it.
|
|
0 
