1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

100-400 on aps-C Magnification query

Discussion in 'Lens Matters' started by pixelpuffin, May 8, 2020.

  1. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    I’m not sure myself, but the fur on the beak, the hook at the end of the beak and the fact the beak is black makes me think it is a raven.What ever it is it sure is handsome. I love watching him/her fly - just wish I could photograph it too.
    Don’t be fooled by the plant pot - it’s 12” in diameter!!
  2. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    I expect you are correct.
  3. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Then it’s a carrion crow.

    Forgot I had this one - as an idea of scale

    [​IMG]BV9R0174.jpg by Pete, on Flickr
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    It was small compared to this

    [​IMG]BV9R0130-2.jpg by Pete, on Flickr

    but my favourite as always is one of these

    [​IMG]BV9R0149.jpg by Pete, on Flickr

    though wild ones are better. This was being bothered by a carrion crow and went right overhead. I can't really bend backwards enough to cope with that.

    [​IMG]BV9R0261.jpg by Pete, on Flickr

    [​IMG]BV9R0270.jpg by Pete, on Flickr
    ChrisNewman and EightBitTony like this.
  5. swanseadave

    swanseadave Well-Known Member

    Nice captures there Pete
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Tx. I shouldn’t have made the last post as it wasn’t the place. I got carried away down memory lane after I found the picture of the falconer handling the raven which gives a good impression of how big they are.
  7. swanseadave

    swanseadave Well-Known Member

    I must admit I`m surprised just how big they are.

    When I was a kid an uncle of mine had a raven with a damaged wing which had healed badly.
    It used to go everywhere with him in the car or on his shoulder.I was a bit scared of it due to its size.
  8. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Quick update;

    Finally caved in and bought a used 100-400ii
    I waited until I managed to find a “as new” model - this model has supposedly been used twice!! And was within my price range. Took endless hours searching.

    Has it lived upto all the hype??
    I’m still somewhat disbelieving how good it actually is. All the hype surrounding the IS, the optics, the close focus, the AF etc etc..... it’s all true!!

    I love my 70-300L, it’s the only lens I own that I bought new. BUT I can’t deny the 100-400ii beats it on all counts except for physical weight and size (hence why I’m keeping the 70-300L)

    The difference optically between my two copies isn’t even subtle. The images from the longer zoom are instantly more detailed straight out of the camera.

    My cameras all have the profiles for the lenses I own. No getting away from it...the 100-400ii is fabulous. (If a bit heavy and BIG)

    oh, and err...white!! Ordering a black lens coat!!
  9. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    A monopod is pretty much essential if using one all day. I think the white colour is to help prevent overheating if all day in the sun, I’d not put a black lens coat on it.
  10. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the Tip Pete
    I’ll order camo - Hate camo, looks nerdy and geeky!!

    But, how come other big zooms from Nikon, Sigma etc are black if overheating is a realistic threat?
    ChrisNewman likes this.
  11. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Dunno, Sony and Fuji (although only one lens) are white too. Gray’s advert in AP has always shown some white lenses but I don’t know what they are.
  12. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    Nikon do white lenses too.
  13. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    In the 1980s, when lenses were generally metal bodied they were finished in black metals expand to a greater extent than plastics so I would have expected the thermal effects on more recent lenses to be less significant. However, with a mix of metal and plastic parts there are other considerations.
  14. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Don't judge
    But wondered if using a old black sock to slip over the lens would work. It would allow to breath, elasticated for snugness and cheap!!
    Wondered if I could use a old black football sock - chop foot off and slip over. Allow for zoom action too

    just a thought...
    By all means laugh, just an idea :)
  15. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Why do you need a cover?
  16. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    I don’t like using white lenses
    I have a rain cover for my 70-300L + 7d that I always have on...but it doesn’t fit the longer 100-400

    My son plays football for 2 separate clubs, one means we have to travel to some areas where you really don’t want to draw attention.
    Last year I bought a used 70-300 nano just for this reason - returned it instantly as it was awful. why build a super fast focusing lens that delivers soft (unusable) images. It was utter garbage. I read afterwards optically it was inferior to the original 70-300 IS !!

    Just why???
  17. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I found a link that said the (off) white started with Canon's early adoption of fluorite glass which was less tolerant of expansion in the metal of the lens and more fragile than non-fluorite elements. Then the (off)white became a "brand". The elements in the big lenses are absolutely huge so differential expansion must be a concern, whether it is needed for smaller lenses - like my 70-200 F4 - seems less likely. I haven't owned a black lens of any size for a long time and can't remember if there were any issues with it getting hot - it was an 80-200 F2.8 Hexanon and in my memory slightly bigger than my 70-200 F2.8 Canon.
  18. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Fair enough - but a rain cover might be better than a lens coat which will have to leave the barrel exposed to allow for zooming.
  19. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    With regards to these lenscoats - I’m not entirely convinced. I returned 2 examples of 400/5.6 that I bought as a way of avoiding have to buy the 100-400ii.
    Both had been used with lens coats - one arrived with the lens. They are VERY snug fitting...VERY!!
    Both lenses had distinctive focus issues. One continuously slipped in manual the other just wouldn’t engage in manual but Both worked flawlessly in AF??

    Both were returned. I came to a conclusion that the tight lenscoats were interfering with the full time manual focus that EF USM lenses offer. I can’t prove it but it sounds entirely logical (to me) that these coats are wearing out the internal clutch drive that enables full time manual focus?? If the coats are bridging the collar between focus ring and body then is it not possible that manual focus is constantly fighting with the AF drive thus leading to premature wear.
    Both 400’s were mint
    One was 2015 model the other was much earlier.
  20. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I'll have to get my 400 out and look see if the focus ring turns during AF. I suppose it must do to allow the movement to be overridden though I've never been aware of it. If it does then it is plausible that the cover is bad news for the clutch. I've not bothered with lens coats Too much of a nuisance to get them on. I thought about it for because they do provide a measure of protection against bumps but a lens is bought to be used, not mollycoddled, so I've left them bare. I'm not convinced that wild-life pays any more attention to a bare lens than a camouflaged one. If someone is going to lump you on the head and nick the camera then a lens coat doesn't really help much. I suppose it is arguable as to whether it makes you less noticeable in a crowd.

Share This Page