Canon EF400mm versus Canon EF100 - 400mm F4-f5.6. 5 F5. 6

Similar Questions

• Why canon 100-400mm fucos not good lens

  Why objective canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6l usm fucos not well when I take wild birds, the lens just in and out when I fucos with the subject and take a picture, I try a lot of adjustment, but the problem still not solved, the lens is used from adorama tv, the camera is canon70d up, my other two canon lens works very well with my camera Thanks for any help.

  Some of the parameters that could shake your shots are:

  • Number of AF Points - manually by selecting just the central point is simpler to draw
  • Shooting mode - "One Shot" mode is easier to use for most of the scenarios.
  • Focus lens mode - your lens must have settings to adjust the focus of the distance to the subject.
  • Image stabilization - your lens must have parameters to refine the IS.

  One or all of these settings may affect the focus in your images.  What settings are you using?  How far is your subjecgt?  What focal length you are trying to use?  You use a tripod, or handheld?  What are your exposure settings?

• Macro + telephoto?

  Questions first then bottom.

  Sigma f/2.8 150 mm macro with a 1.4 teleconverter OS x will provide me with close IQ than a nice 2.8 70-200 mm telephoto? (so I can buy a gem, but which is easier to sell to my wife) or I really have to choose between telephoto OR macro?

  If I get a 1.4 x teleconverter, I should get the Sigma one or I could get equivalent QI pro300 kenko (which would then allow to be used with a future purchase as a Canon 100-400mm).

  Background:

  I'm looking to make my first expensive lens to buy.  I am relatively new to photography (10 months) but took many photos and maybe even climb.

  I love and tend to take snaps for most wildlife and macro.  I bought a doublet close-up filter which is great for static elements (spiders in webs, etc.) but would like a true macro lens that can always capture capricious insects such as dragonflies.  I would say that 90% of all of my photos are taken at 250mm on my goal of 55-259.  I'd love to take sharper photos than my current goal is possible.

  I was leaning towards the macro Sigma 150 mm OS for its image stabilization and long lens for bugs and hoping that it could double for a telephoto lens in particular, if I add a 1.4 x teleconverter.  (which, at 210mm would make me close my current 250 mm)

  I rented this lens Sigma and sigma 1.4 TC to go with her for a weekend and was happy with my mothering of results.

  I probably eventually get a long telephoto lens (I think probably the Canon 100-400mm), and my other dear goal will probably be 15-85 or 17-55 2.8 canons.

  Thanks for any adivce or thoughts!

  Click here to see the images next to the Sigma 150 vs almost no matter what other purpose under the Sun. It is the site of digital photography, which I really love.

  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/ISO-12233-sample-crops.aspx?lens=807&camera=453&sample=0&...

  If the link doesn't work, or if you want to play with the different lenses, remember this: to see a lens WITH a TELECONVERTER simply select a focal length longer than the max for the lens, and if they have it, it will automatically show you the image with the mounted TC.

  Acceptable image quality is in the eye of the beholder. Judge for yourself.

  Good luck!

• Why files of my photos decrease (10 MB + 1.5 MB or less) that I have Edit and export?

  Why files of my photos decrease (10 MB + 1.5 MB or less) that I have Edit and export?

  Yes!  I used your suggestions of 3000 x 5400 pixels in the settings and my Pelican cropped in J {for example is now more than 5 MB.  Phew!  I guess I really need to BONE up on top of megapixels and compared my new camera.

  I have a 5 d Mark iii with two good glasses (zoom of Canon EF100-400 mm 1: 4) 5 - 5. 6 L IS II USM and Canon zoom EF 24-70 1: 2.8 L II USM).  Problem is that right after getting the camera, I had my first surgery of cataract and have not been able to read that much without a large magnifying glass.  My 2nd cataract surgery is in two days.  I want 'the blind Lady with the right camera' and have been relying on Auto Focus in just a few parameters. Hoping that my vision is coming SOON.

  Thank you all very much!  If anyone knows where I can study and more re: pixel during export, I would be very grateful.

  Once again, so happy.  Thank you!

• Canon 400mm f5.6

  Autofocus canon 7 d Mark ii would work with Canon 400 mm f5.6 when 1.4 x extender attached? I know that the auto focus will work with the 1 d series when extender 1.4 x attached, I was wondering if this works with the new SLR.

  ALIOFF wrote:

  Autofocus canon 7 d Mark ii would work with Canon 400 mm f5.6 when 1.4 x extender attached? I know that the auto focus will work with the 1 d series when extender 1.4 x attached, I was wondering if this works with the new SLR.

  Yes it will work, but you will have only the center point plus 4 assists.  As far as I know only the 80 d, 5DIII, 7DII and the 1 d series will be AF f/8

• Canon lens EF 70-200mm L F4 USM + 2 X L series extender

  Hi, I have a Canon lens EF 70-200mm L F4 USM. Now, I want to buy an extension of series X L 2. Can someone help me by informing that AF can work with EF 70-200mm L USM F4 + 2 X Extender mounted on 650 d device and how much image quality I have to make compromises for the same thing.

  mithun_pal129 wrote:

  Thank you all for your valuable comments. I forgot to mention that my intension of extender to my EF 70-200mm L F4 USM in a telephoto lens for wildlife / birds. But now that I'm your stay in Abu Dhabi, he is not paid a lot of bird / wild life. This is why I don't want to spend a lot on super telephoto, and personally, I don't want to go to cheap Sigma lens. So I wanted to do objective 70-200mm + 2 Expander x 140-400 mm. As I myself feel 1.4 X extender is pretty good, but it will give me up to 280mm. I know that's not very good lens for bird / wild raise photography. But you want to know still is feasible or if I use 2 x Extender to make the 400mm autofocus lens is required for the wild life or manual focus can still operate at F8. I don't have a lot of experience in the photography of wild life that's why I wanted to know things.

  In a Word... N °

  Of a 2 X teleconverter on a 70-200/4 made for a lens of 140-400/8 "effective." Due to the reduction of light reaching the AF sensors, your camera will turn off autofocus. A stronger 2 X also "costs" more loss of quality of the image due to the deterioration.

  It is possible to tape on some of the electronic contacts on the focal length multiplier, so that the camera does not know it is there and always try to auto focus. However, the autofocus will be much slower and will tend to hunt much more.

  In some situations, you may be able to manually update. However, effective f8 makes for a pretty weak sight, most cameras update automatic modern as you do not have some fo the features allowing the development manual, vintage cameras designed for the manual focus had in the past. Some people change to one-third of frosted glass to add functionality to support manual focus (split finder image, micro diaprisms, for example). However this requires careful work to install the screen and the display of different can affect precision measurement of the camera, especially in the incorrect Spot metering.

  Addition of a lower 1.4 X teleconverter makes your lens in effect 112-280mm f5.6, who will still be updated with auto focus and will be much less loss of image quality, but not as much 'reach. If yours is a goal IS, it can reasonably be handholdable. If it is not a goal IS, you will need to watch your shutter speeds than blur carefully, probably should keep to 1/500 or more quickly to avoid the camera. Or use a tripod, as suggested by ebibgs, or at least a monopod. You also need to limit the autofocus on your camera to the central AF point only, I think.

  ebiggs1 wrote:

  On your camera, the 70-200mm f4 is like a 112-320mm f4.  With a converter 1. 4 x, looking at 448mm f5.6 and th elong end.  + 400 mm should be long enough for you to get photos of some birds.  BTW, use a tripod.

  While it is technically correct, citing the "crop camera lens factor" in this way may not help much, can be confusing.

  The original poster has simply a 70-200mm lens which they are accustomed to using on a crop sensor camera. They would now like to double the range of this lens on their camera. Crop sensor lens incorporating conversation factor is very useful when the user goes from frame of film/full to reframe the camera or vice versa. For someone who has never used a film camera or has not used one for many years and is now completely accustomed to how behaves a lens of focal length on their device to harvest, it is a completely moot point.

  But what he's basically saying that while you can add a 2 X, it is probably not a good idea for several reasons. Auto focus will work or not, with a few tips, won't work only weakly. Manual focus will be difficult. And the picture quality might take too big a hit, combining a 2 X with your goal. .

  I have a 70-200/4 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS ("Mark I"), 1. 4 X II and 2 X Teleconverters II. I also have long telephoto lenses, so rarely need to add these zooms teleconverter. However if necessary I would use 1.4 X on one of them. But even if AF still work on the 70-200/2.8 + 2 X combo, I won't use it because of the amount of loss of image quality (the most recent IS of 70 - 200/2.8 Mark II and 2 X Mark III are supposed to work together better, than my older versions of each).

  I use mostly 2 X on 300/2.8 and 500/4 lenses privileged where the image quality is still good. (Note: Yes, on some of my cameras 2 X 500/4 causes AF to stop working, as it would on your f4 lens, so I only use the combo on a limited basis.)

  mithun_pal129... I would say the more you get a 1. 4 X and use it with your goal. See if the image quality is to your expectations. Then work to get closer to your subjects. Or bring them closer to you. Practice the techniques of stalking and to study the behaviors of your subjects to discover ways to get closer. Work in a blind and use bait (food, calls). And start saving for a lens of longer focal length.

  The Canon 1.4 X II and III teleconverters are excellent. All Canon teleconverters have mated before elements that limit the lenses that they physically can be attached, but the 70-200 are among those where this is possible. Teleconverter Kenko is another that I see quite often recommended. They have two different levels of quality: a more expensive "Pro 300" version and a cheaper "MC - 4". These are currently offered in versions "DGX" whose operation is very similar to Canon teleconverters. Old Kenko teleconverters "DG" not "reported" to the camera, the camera didn't know they were there, so try to focus.  In the view of users and tests I've seen, the current Kenko Pro 300 DGX is pretty good overall of the entire image area. The MC - 4 cheaper is actually a little sharper in the Center, but not as strong in the corners and the edges of the image. Tamron and Sigma teleconverters also do, but I have little experience or knowledge of the current versions of the people.

  The wildlife/bird photography is not easy. Since no matter how long a goal that you have, there are times when the subjects are just out of reach and all you can go is to sit back and enjoy the show.

  These photos of small subjects with different, but close to or less than the effective focal length even lenses like your 70-200 mm + a 1. 4 X teleconverter would be on your camera...

  

  

  

  

  ***********
  Alan Myers

  San Jose, California, USA.
  «Market softly and carry a great lens.»
  MATERIAL: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
  FLICKR & REPROGRAPHY

• With the help of Canon 70 d ALL I have images directly, or DNxHD encoding to intermediary?

  I was reading about smart rendering, and that led me to DNxHD in an intermediate format. I developed the prospect that DNxHD is a ProRes format - as Windows users can use with first to an intermediate format. Although without loss, DNxHD is apparently also resistant against the re-encoding of quality such as ProRes or close enough to be considered quite good. For my personal projects not pro, DNxHD looked a lot.

  I then looked deeper into what my Canon product with ALL - a light bulb and I finally exploded when you read something ALL-I, where it seems that Canon is ALL I have is trying to help its users to avoid the loss of all intermediate formats by providing a format, all THE-I, which is apparently ready to go for editing... that is what ALL I have is apparently intended for.

  This led me to want to compare the time coding sequences created with ALL I have versus DNxHD clips. I took a second ~ 60 ALL-I file .mov, transcoded to DNxHD, then used two clips, original ALL-I, as well as the new DNxHD based on EVERYTHING-I, compare the time encoding of each with or without use of preview (with or without smart rendering) files and move both h.264/MP4 and DNxHD...

  Test #.	Sequence source	Target of encoded file	Use the Previews?	Encoding time

  
  Test 1:All THE Canon I, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .movH.264, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, VBR, 1 package, .mp4Yes01:54Test 2:DNxHD, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .mxfH.264, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, VBR, 1 package, .mp4Yes02:02Test 3:All THE Canon I, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .movDNxHD, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .mxf (sequence format)Yes00:12Test 4:DNxHD, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .mxfDNxHD, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .mxf (sequence format)Yes00:15Test 5:All THE Canon I, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .movH.264, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, VBR, 1 package, .mp4NO.03:53Test 6:DNxHD, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .mxfH.264, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, VBR, 1 package, .mp4NO.03:56Test 7:All THE Canon I, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .movDNxHD, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .mxf (sequence format)NO.03:17Test 8:DNxHD, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .mxfDNxHD, 23.976 fps, 1920 x 1080, .mxf (sequence format)NO.03:31

  Of the above, I don't see an advantage in avoiding cannon is - I because it seems to work as well as an intermediary DNxHD when comparing time coding of a format to DNxHD.

  One advantage I've seen with DNxHD, is that, when it is used as edition/intermediate format, first washing seems to work more easily when you go forward / backward... If I slide the rear transport, many more images are instantly displayed for the sequence based on the DNxHD, while the ALL-I sequence a lag/delays while rubbing not as smooth everything by rubbing back / comes in timeline/monitor. Someone wrote about this new benefit in a post somewhere, saying it's all what they considered an advantage to an intermediate file DNxHD... and I saw first hand with the above tests.

  This leads me to believe walk away from Canon of ALL - I in another intermediate format has no apparent performance to benefit while encoding, at least in my tests.

  Am I missing something here or is it just?

  I'm trying to establish a decent efficient workflow for use on a laptop old to 5 years, that's why I am asking this. Thank you.

  One advantage I've seen with DNxHD, is that, when it is used as edition/intermediate format, first washing seems to work more easily when you go forward / backward.

  It is the main source of motivation for transcoding.  I have change everything as Cineform files for just this service.  (He breeds again once you start to apply some effects.)

• What happens in Sierra w Canon scanners?

  Canon started late to upgrade the drivers for its scanners, but the list of those still pending is very long...

  My question is: Sierra is a minor update (i.e. risk limited) or rewriting profoundly affects the relevant areas in the analysis? What is likely to happen if I update before the drivers are ready?

  Specifically, I am trying to scan documents Canon imageFORMULA DR-C225W

  Thank you

  Is Sierra a minor update?

  No upgrade of the OS is minor. Framework can load and existing software may be rendered uselss.

  Apple provides the operating system to developers in advance months to make changes are necessary for the developer to make their decision on what they want to do. Some developers will be in fact stop software for older models and you can not see support for a specific device. In these events, contact Canon and see if they can provide a beta driver or provide a workaround solution. Otherwise, it is an excellent reason to keep a backup of your computer to restore it at a time where the operating system and the hardware work together where Sierra makes the incompatible camera and canon does not offer a solution.

• Impossible to scan on Canon MB2350

  I occasionally scan using the Scan 2 IJ of Canon utility software.

  I just tried to analyse a contract and that's all that I can get this message:

  

  It worked fine the week last under OSX.

  I have a network wired ethernet LAN connection.

  The printer can print OK.

  Any ideas please?

  Kind regards

  Bob

  I contacted Canon, they have yet to get their act together (my words) and, at this late stage, realized that some of their software, drivers, etc., is incompatible with the Sierra.

  Their recommendation does not upgrade to Sierra if you want their kit to work.

  No time estimated for fix.

  Either by the way, Nikon have now identified a problem.

  Maybe Apple should have an Upgrade Advisor as Microsoft do...

  Thanks for reading this.

  Bob

• Canon MG7100 prints but will not scan after update of the iMac? How to fix?

  Canon MG7100 worked very well with the iMac - scanning and printing. After doing the updates of the iMac and installation Siri scanning does not work. Always printing. The printer/scanner Canon said - Set PC to start scanning - I have MG7100 added on the iMac. I opened (and re-locked) firewall to let in the Canon UJ utility. I deleted the all-in-one Hi - and added MG7100.

  http://support-Asia.Canon-Asia.com/contents/Asia/en/0100535401.html

  doesn't look like canon has a printer that takes in charge the newer versions of Mac OS x, if I were you I would take contact them to see if they plan on support of new versions, apple made no drivers for the hardware they don't and if hardware manufacturers does not provide a working driver head can group with the new version of Mac OS x We have to rely on manufacturing to have a download on their page

• Canon scanner

  Opening of the early Sierra brings up a Panel for list for the user to select scanners. For me no scanners are listed. I have a Canon MG7520 that has worked well for more than a year of Apple operating.

  After checking the scanner and find WiFi and other features everything in order, tempting scan shows a report of several reasons for the failure. The last seems to appply. He says that the name of the scanner is not correct.

  Experiment, I found a work around start in the Apple preferences and go Printers and scanners. It works as follows:

  Power scanner / place the document on the scanner glass / open preferences from Apple (for the top of the screen to the left) / open Printers and scanners / scanner names listed / select or enter MG7500 Canon series 6 / Scanner screen opens (it shows a symbol of a scanner and scan of the word in its upper right) / select the area to be scanned in the new box / click the scan symbol (a form opens allowing the user to specify a name and a location for the scan).

  All this applies only to Canon printer/scanner and maybe not all of them. I imagine that Apple will correct the defect of the opening screen of the Sierra to do its job.

  You welcome any comments from the user.

  Apple - hope you're listening to.

  William foot

  [email protected]

  (1) apple may be addressed here

  Apple.com/Feedback

  (2) it is a product of canon, they can choose to support or not. Apple will not reverse engineer their OS to work for someone else's decision. the developers of Canon had access to OS X 10.12 months before it was public to make the drivers work or not, they chose to not

  (3) send never publicly your e-mail unless you want spam.

• 4K Canon EOS5D Mark iv and EOS1DX Mark II video

  Hello

  I can't play or correctly modify videos 4K of the EOS - 1DX Mark ii on my Mac. The images are wiped out as if it were 5 fps.

  I have OS X El Capitan 10.11.6 with 2.6 Ghz processor Intel Core i5, 16 GB of RAM, Intel Iris 1536 MB graphics card.

  I usually play and edit 4 K Panasonic video with no problems.

  Here, I tried the Canon 4 K MJPEG with Final Cut Pro X, Quicktime, VLC, video player Rocket and EOS Utility film without success.

  The EOS - 1DX Mark ii as well as the EOS - 5 d Mark iv btw are not on cameras for Final Cut Pro X.

  https://support.Apple.com/en-us/HT204203

  I also tried to play videos 4K 1DX - EOS Mark II on 5 different Mac and it has always failed. I tried on a Windows PC, and it worked.

  Apple support told me that Canon codec is missing to play videos 4 K 1DX - EOS Mark II.

  Can you confirm?

  What can I do without losing the quality 4K

  You can search this forum for the camera model, but I think that you will get a faster response by visiting the Canon support forums, if they exist. If there is no available for Quicktime codec, you go through a conversion software, upstream of FCPX. The camera came with a way to move the motionjpg files to a Macintosh? Should have.

  http://nofilmschool.com/2016/05/field-review-Canon-EOS-1d-x-Mark-II

  https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=p67plTeMyD8

  http://newatlas.com/Canon-1DX-MarkII-DSLR-4k/41619/

  https://www.cinema5D.com/Canon-EOS-1d-x-Mark-II-review-real-world-video-samples-: first-impressions.

  http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/06/18/the-Canon-1DX-MKII-4k-video-DSLR-reviewed-par-Jon-Roemer /.

  The X II 1 d produces very nice video 4 K, but there's a catch: capture 4 K is limited to Motion JPEG. Motion JPEG is a relatively inefficient compression method, especially compared to the codecs of H.264 - based, such as Canon XF - STROKE (which is still on the compact Canon XC10). It requires broadband which produce large files. As you can see in the table below, 4 K/30 p of record runs nearly 500 Mbps and 4 K/60 p manages nearly 800 Mbps. By comparison, Sony a7S II captures 4 K/p 30 to 50-100 Mbps and the Panasonic GH4 is 100-200 Mbit/s.

  But what about the 4 K?

  The biggest upgrade in spec video camera is the addition of 4K film but, curiously, this can only be captured by using Motion JPEG format and the greater-than-16:9 DCI 4 K (4096 x 2160 pixel) aspect ratio. Two of these choices seem odd: all - I have H.264 compression, the camera uses to its 1080 images would be a more effective choice of codec and UHD 4K 16:9 flavor is better suited to certain applications.

  However, with the capture of 4 K, the 1 d X II includes tools to capture 8.8MP frameworks of its 4 K files: how the decision to save each image as an individual JPEG is a bit more logical. Wedding shooters could even use this feature for document receptions in complete silence: despite the 1 D X II wins a continuous silent drive like the 5 d/R mode, it isn't all that silent.

  The 1 d X II also won a headphone jack, which is important for the monitoring of noise levels during video recording.

• Importing photos is no longer imports of Canon EOS 20 d

  Since the update to IOS 10/Sierra, the Photos is not automatically import photos from my camera. Previously, I would like to connect the camera to the USB port, open iPhotos and he would start the import process. I've rechecked through Capture of Image and importer self that my camera is recognized as a device. I have started and restarted several times; and double checked that my camera (Canon EOS 20 d) is compatible with the Sierra. My camera always does not appear as a device in Photos. Help, please!

  Is your camera mode suitable for importation and the batteries loaded properly?

  Shooting RAW or JPEG?

  Photos see the card, if you use a card reader?

• Canon LBP 2900 works does not in the Sierra

  Hey,.

  Guys, 2900 canon printer worked very well... .but after sierra update does not

  no idea...

  Thank you

  It is possible that Canon is no longer support for this printer

  for macOS Sierra.  Wouldn't be surprising.  They dropped

  support for a large number of their printers in OS X and newer versions of Windows.

• Compatibility problem Canon iR - ADV C5240 driver

  Clean installed macOS Sierra. Now, when you try to install the Driver of Canon iR - ADV C5240, it appears "unable to install this version of the operating system that you use. Run the Setup program on a version that supports.

  There is no driver support in the canon Web site. Is there a workaround.

  You will need to contact Canon - they need to upgrade their installation.