Well, as everyone who was at the June 11 meet knows, my 300D decided to die on me right in the middle of it. Got that replaced with a shiny new 30D which is one heck of a fine piece of machinery.
At the same time, I decided to change the purchase of a 24-70L to a 100-400L instead. Figure I'm going to head up to NYC more often now, and I can pull off some wicked angles of departures at PHL. So my dad (also an aviation photographer as some of you know) decides to get one too.
So yesterday me and my buddy Ed head out to PHL. I quikcly realised upon reviewing the photos that everything above 250 to 300mm is unbeleivably soft. Just absolutely horrible. So today me and my dad go out to PHL. We both shoot with the 100-400 all day. Now both of us are sitting here lamenting over absolutely horrible photos.
Now, since I know the great majority of the Canon users in NYC seem to wield 100-400s, I figured this is the best place to go for advice. Is the 100-400 really that bad of a lens? Everything I've read owners are raving about the thing. Ok, so maybe One can get a bad lens, but is it possible to get two bad lenses? Am I expecting too much from it? I would hope not considering it carries a $1400 price tag with it. I mean I had a $180 75-300 that was soft above 200mm, but this is far worse and its L glass!
Thanks in advance for the help.
Joe Wagner
PS: My signature would apparently not apply if one was using my 100-400 to shoot the photo. :D
Bookmarks