I intend to purchae the Canon eos 5 with the 100-400is. I will be using them mainly for wildlife, safari's ect. My question is, will this oufit produce much better results than say a Minolta 100-300 APO with a Minolta 800 body and a beanbag for support, bearing in mind that I will be shooting with print film only. At presant I use a Canon sureshot 120 classic, quality ok but I would like better, with a longer zoom for wildlife.

Is the Canon kit an overkill? It's nearly twice the price of the minolta package and also weighs twice as much. I don't mind spending the extra cash if the results are shown in my photo's. Any suggestions welcome.

-- Michael Wain (mike@mcdcwain.freeserve.co.uk), March 24, 2001

Answers

I have not used any Minolta stuff. That said, assuming the Minolta gear is of equal optical quality to Canon's (although I would be surprised if the Minolta could rival the quality/built of a Canon L lens), I would still go for the Canon. You have 100mm more reach, image stiabilization, and in same speed lens (aperture wise). The Canon setup would just be more flexible.

Also, an EOS 5 with 100-400 is not so heavy that weight is really a factor (at least for me). Also, if possible, I would try out both combos at a store to see which handles better for you, as that could be a consideration. If in doubt, I would purchase the Canon combo first and try it out thoroughly. If you don't like it, its resale value should be much better than Minolta's.

-- AC Gordon (cliffdeb@ciris.net), March 25, 2001.

Michael,

I use the 100-400IS lens whenever I travel. Getting the big lens to my destination is a chore because it is very heavy as compared to my former lens which was the 75-300IS. The results however are well worth it. I recently came back from a boat trip in Cancun. I used the 100-400 lens to capture a spectacular sunset with para-sailors and a big sun. I couldn't use a tripod on the boat so I hand-held the lens at 400mm at 1/125 sec. The pictures were sharp despite my hand-holding and the rocking of the boat.

If weight and size are considerations for you, I would also evaluate the Canon 75-300IS lens. It is lighter and smaller, although you will lose 100mm and AF speed.

Good luck.

-- Alex Tran (alexltran@yahoo.com), March 25, 2001.

The image stabilized 100-400 combined with a beanbag is an awesome safari setup. Get it, you won't be sorry.

-- Karl Lehmann (outback@gte.net), March 29, 2001.

Since a camera body has nothing to do with image quality, and you have access to a beanbag for either setup, the only difference would be between the lens optics only. I guess you'll have to find the test results yourself as I'm not familiar w/ the Minolta lens, but do own the 100-400. Though I'm not a wildlife shooter, the extra 100mm in length would benefit you greatly and give you much more fredom, and the IS is another nice feature. Not sure this helped any, but I can't help but think a longer lens would be the only way to go if you can fund for it.

-- Darren Kilgore (dekilgore@home.com), March 29, 2001.

This is not the answer you are looking for, and this lens is not the best lens for safari's and the like, but you should know that B&H is practically giving away their stock of EF 100-300 L 5.6 lenses. Yes its an old design, no USM, but with great glass and for $329.00 US version, its a steal.

-- Eduardo Buso (EDVANDAN@aol.com), March 29, 2001.

I'm just about to change my 75-300mm IS zoom for the 100-400L IS zoom. I strongly recommend avoiding the cheaper Canon lens. I have recruited in Kenya for the last 4 years and switched from an Olympus OM4 with 300mm f/4.5 to an EOS 5 with 75-300 IS two years ago.

I have just started to use the safari photo's from my last two visits, 10 rolls of soft focus shots. The lens is fine if all you want is 5x4' prints but if you want to exhibit you work or print at 10x8' or 12x16' the lens is just not up to scratch.

On my last visit I borrowed an old 100-300L and the results are much better. Looking at the tests results I am expecting just as good from the 100-400 with the added advantage of IS.

Andy

-- Andy Thompson (prsast@bath.ac.uk), April 10, 2001.

EOS 5??? Get a 3 or 7 at least! Also, if you expect to be using the lens mostly at the long end, get the flawless 300 4 IS and a 2X Sigma.

-- Alex Georgiadis (alexyes@hotmail.com), May 08, 2001.

looks like this discussion has died... i'm no expert...but i do have the minolta 100-300 apo lenses. it is very small (@3.5 inches @100mm) and weighs something like 16 oz....very easy to travel around with. yes i do use it for wildlife photos, and yes the focus isn't super fast like the canons...but it will give excellent results wide open at 300mm...i have many 16x20s i like from it; i used to use a 4x5, so i feel i have good idea of sharpness :). it is f5.6 (but i shoot mostly 400 speed b&w so i don't care! besides 5.6 is fine for a "sunny" day here in seattle w/ 100 speed film, and we don't get much sun!)...you can pick up a used one for about 300.00...and a used 7xi for around 250.00...a very good and affordable combo w/ a 4fps filmdrive....also save a considerable amt over just the straight 100-400 IS lens! btw the 100-300 apo has a focus hold switch...almost as good as the af/mf ease of a canon L lense

the downside: the differences pointed out above are all mechanical, i don't see optical differences between the two lenses (i'm VERY pleased w/ the apo's performance, but maybe i have low standards?). however the 100-300 apo is not as stoutly constructed as the canon 100-400 IS...i wont even go into the focusing dept! but then you would be comparing a 399.00 lens to a 1000+ dollar lens and that isn't fair!

-- casey veranth (cj_veranth@hotmail.com), June 24, 2001.

btw..i noticed you said you are using only print film...print film is usually "sharper" than slide film...and well its ideal for prints....u r probably using a 100 speed or faster film? go w/ the100-300 apo + 7xi used @500.00, then use the other 1500+ towards the safari!

either setup is great, but how serious are you about your pics? if you use the camera 365 days a year w/o regard to humidity, gravity, etc go w/ the big dog...if you don't aspire to see your pics in natl geographic and you prefer a 16 oz lens of equal optical quality w/ "mortal" construction and avg ("prosumer") focus speed as its vice that you use every other day of the year instead...welcome to minoltas :)

good luck Casey V

-- casey veranth (cj_veranth@hotmail.com), June 24, 2001.

The canon sureshot 120 can take pictures and also fit into your pocket. if you get chased by a hippo or something it won't weigh you down. don't worry about that flash epensive kit, stick with what you've got!

-- Timothy Stevens (TimSavannah97676@hotmail.com), July 05, 2001.