Lens dilema

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by embee, Oct 17, 2006.

  1. embee

    embee Guest

    Hello,

    I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
    with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
    currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
    past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
    (particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I would
    like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.

    I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
    100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

    I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
    anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
    of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.

    Many thanks.
    embee, Oct 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. embee wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very
    > happy with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal
    > length I currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me
    > adequately in the past. However, I would like to invest in a better
    > piece of glass (particulary for candids, sport and the occassional
    > wildlife shot). I would like to buy an L series lens which has
    > stabilisation.
    > I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the
    > EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
    >
    > I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered
    > if anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of
    > either/both of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.
    >
    > Many thanks.


    I can't offer any advice from personal knowledge of either lens, but I
    can say I have never been particularly fond of any extenders from the
    standpoint of quality. While the better ones do sever well as an economical
    approach, they never seem to equal a good lens and using them with zooms
    just seems to bring out the worst of both.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. embee

    Doug Robbins Guest

    A dilemma is a problem offering two solutions, neither of which is
    acceptable. I don't think that this word applies in your case.

    Doug


    "embee" <> wrote in message
    news:eh2evd$js7$...
    >
    >
    > Hello,
    >
    > I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
    > with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
    > currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
    > past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
    > (particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I
    > would like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.
    >
    > I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
    > 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
    >
    > I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
    > anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
    > of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.
    >
    > Many thanks.
    >
    Doug Robbins, Oct 17, 2006
    #3
  4. embee

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:31:57 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "embee"
    <> wrote:

    >I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
    >with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
    >currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
    >past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
    >(particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I would
    >like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.
    >
    >I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
    >100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
    >
    >I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
    >anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
    >of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.


    Ask yourself what fraction of your shots would be taken using the
    200-400mm range. Also ask yourself for the fraction taken using 200mm
    and below does the f/2.8 give you an advantage.

    I've shot a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 stabilized lens with a 2x converter
    for years now. But the f/2.8 lens by itself comes in very handy on
    it's own at times.
    -
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
    Ed Ruf, Oct 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Ed Ruf wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:31:57 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "embee"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
    >> with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
    >> currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
    >> past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
    >> (particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I would
    >> like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.
    >>
    >> I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
    >> 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
    >>
    >> I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
    >> anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
    >> of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.

    >
    > Ask yourself what fraction of your shots would be taken using the
    > 200-400mm range. Also ask yourself for the fraction taken using 200mm
    > and below does the f/2.8 give you an advantage.
    >
    > I've shot a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 stabilized lens with a 2x converter
    > for years now. But the f/2.8 lens by itself comes in very handy on
    > it's own at times.


    Ed has a good point. I have the 70-200 IS lens, with a 1.4 extender. The
    2x gets a bit soft, or did on my 20D. Haven't tried one (2x) with the
    5D, but doubt I will, as the 20D is very active, and of course has the
    1.6 crop factor; I turned in the 2x and kept the 1.4x. I like the combos
    very much, btw.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Oct 17, 2006
    #5
  6. embee

    embee Guest

    "Doug Robbins" <> wrote in message
    news:X25Zg.133$...
    > A dilemma is a problem offering two solutions, neither of which is
    > acceptable. I don't think that this word applies in your case.
    >
    > Doug
    >

    In the sense that, whichever lens I buy, my bank balance will be more than a
    thousand UK pounds lighter, I consider it an entirely appropriate word to
    use ;-)

    Many thanks
    embee, Oct 17, 2006
    #6
  7. embee

    bwoag Guest

    Do you need stabilization?
    Do you try to handhold at focal lengths greater than 200mm with big glass
    like your Sigma?
    What is it about the Sigma that you do not like that you think Canon glass
    will be all that much better?
    Unless you are hiding inside a panel truck lenses like this are not exactly
    inconspicuous for candid shooting . . .
    bwoag, Oct 17, 2006
    #7
  8. embee

    embee Guest

    "bwoag" <> wrote in message
    news:Zn6Zg.18612$...
    > Do you need stabilization?


    Yes. It works, I like it.

    > Do you try to handhold at focal lengths greater than 200mm with big glass
    > like your Sigma?


    Not if I can help it, but there have been occassions when I have had to
    handhold (I've been to sports events where tripds and monopods are not
    allowed, for example.)

    > What is it about the Sigma that you do not like that you think Canon glass
    > will be all that much better?


    I have used Sigma exclusively in the past, but am now converting to Canon at
    all focal lengths. I am much happier with the image quality from Canon
    lenses, especially L series. Contrast and colour are superior, and there is
    less aberration and vignetting. I am not criticising Sigma - they generally
    offer good lenses for the price. It's just that I have found I get far
    better results using Canon lenses and now I'm prepared to stump up the cash.

    > Unless you are hiding inside a panel truck lenses like this are not
    > exactly inconspicuous for candid shooting . . .


    My understanding of a candid photo is one that's informal and unposed. The
    physical size of a lens shouldn't matter - I'm not taking "secret" shots. I
    will mostly be doing wedding candids and everybody there will know what I am
    up to!

    Many thanks.
    embee, Oct 17, 2006
    #8
  9. embee

    Marten Guest

    "embee" <> wrote in message
    news:eh2evd$js7$...
    >
    >
    > Hello,
    >
    > I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
    > with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
    > currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
    > past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
    > (particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I
    > would like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.
    >
    > I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
    > 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
    >
    > I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
    > anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
    > of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.
    >
    > Many thanks.
    >


    The EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM is a fabulous lens for candid portrait work at
    weddings and other gatherings. With f2.8 you can get beautiful bokeh.
    Marten, Oct 17, 2006
    #9
  10. embee

    embee Guest

    "Marten" <> wrote in message
    news:5S6Zg.27478$P7.7307@edtnps89...
    >


    >
    > The EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM is a fabulous lens for candid portrait work at
    > weddings and other gatherings. With f2.8 you can get beautiful bokeh.
    >
    >

    Thank you for that - do you have any experience of using it with a 2x
    converter? I must admit, this is the lens I would choose if it wasn't for
    the fact I sometimes need more reach.
    embee, Oct 17, 2006
    #10
  11. embee

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > embee wrote:
    >
    > I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
    > with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
    > currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
    > past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
    > (particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I would
    > like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.
    >
    > I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
    > 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
    >
    > I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
    > anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
    > of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.


    I have a 1D M II and have all three lenses you mention (24-105, 70-200
    f/2.8 L IS, 100-400). Basically the 70-200 is optically superior to
    the 100-400, no doubt about that. We rarely use the 100-400 because of
    this since at f/5.6 and 400 mm it's just not a quality lens, though
    with the 1.3x sensor you get rid of most of the corner problems at f/8.


    However if you pop a 2x on the 70-200 then the image quality of this
    setup is inferior to the 100-400 when shot at 400, to give you an idea
    of how much you lose with the 2x.

    On the other hand with the 1.4x on the 70-200 you still have pretty
    high image quality, I've found.

    So it boils down to how badly do you need to go over say 280 mm (which
    is where you'll be with the 70-200 and the 1.4x).

    If you can give up IS then a good solution at this same basic price
    point is to get the 70-200 f/4 L and the 400 f/5.6 L. My wife has
    these two lenses and does very well with them.

    Or the 70-200 f/4 plus the 300 f/4 L IS if you need/want IS with a
    longer lens, then with the 1.4x (which will give good results on both
    of these lenses) you're covered from 70 mm to 420 mm.

    Or if you can spend more get the new 70-200 f/4 L IS with even greater
    IS sensitivity, according to Canon, and then one of the longer lenses
    mentioned. But the f/4 IS is selling at a hefty premium over the
    non-IS f/4 right now.

    I'm probably not helping with your decision by mentioning these new
    lenses, but any combination of these will give better image quality
    than the 100-400.

    Here's a site that compares the image quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
    w/ 2x to the 100-400 ...
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml ...
    elsewhere on this site there's a test of the 100-400 vs the 400 f/5.6 L
    too. To sum up, the 100-400 at 400 beat the 70-200 w/2x combo but lost
    to the straight 400 f/5.6 L ...

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Oct 17, 2006
    #11
  12. embee

    embee Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> embee wrote:
    >>

    >
    > I have a 1D M II and have all three lenses you mention (24-105, 70-200
    > f/2.8 L IS, 100-400). Basically the 70-200 is optically superior to
    > the 100-400, no doubt about that. We rarely use the 100-400 because of
    > this since at f/5.6 and 400 mm it's just not a quality lens, though
    > with the 1.3x sensor you get rid of most of the corner problems at f/8.
    >
    >
    > However if you pop a 2x on the 70-200 then the image quality of this
    > setup is inferior to the 100-400 when shot at 400, to give you an idea
    > of how much you lose with the 2x.
    >
    > On the other hand with the 1.4x on the 70-200 you still have pretty
    > high image quality, I've found.
    >
    > So it boils down to how badly do you need to go over say 280 mm (which
    > is where you'll be with the 70-200 and the 1.4x).
    >
    > If you can give up IS then a good solution at this same basic price
    > point is to get the 70-200 f/4 L and the 400 f/5.6 L. My wife has
    > these two lenses and does very well with them.
    >
    > Or the 70-200 f/4 plus the 300 f/4 L IS if you need/want IS with a
    > longer lens, then with the 1.4x (which will give good results on both
    > of these lenses) you're covered from 70 mm to 420 mm.
    >
    > Or if you can spend more get the new 70-200 f/4 L IS with even greater
    > IS sensitivity, according to Canon, and then one of the longer lenses
    > mentioned. But the f/4 IS is selling at a hefty premium over the
    > non-IS f/4 right now.
    >
    > I'm probably not helping with your decision by mentioning these new
    > lenses, but any combination of these will give better image quality
    > than the 100-400.
    >
    > Here's a site that compares the image quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
    > w/ 2x to the 100-400 ...
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml ...
    > elsewhere on this site there's a test of the 100-400 vs the 400 f/5.6 L
    > too. To sum up, the 100-400 at 400 beat the 70-200 w/2x combo but lost
    > to the straight 400 f/5.6 L ...
    >
    > Bill
    >


    Thanks so much for this comprehensive post Bill, I haven't had time to
    properly digest everything you've said but I'm sure that I will take good
    account of your advice when I come to the final decision.

    Thanks again - posts like this are what makes Usenet so great!
    embee, Oct 17, 2006
    #12
  13. embee

    Stu Guest

    I agree with John. I use this combo myself and get on very well with it.

    20D and 70-200 2.8IS with 1.4 extender suits me needs to a tee. Sometimes I
    wish I had a 400 prime, but this is very rare for the shots I take.


    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    >
    > Ed has a good point. I have the 70-200 IS lens, with a 1.4 extender. The
    > 2x gets a bit soft, or did on my 20D. Haven't tried one (2x) with the 5D,
    > but doubt I will, as the 20D is very active, and of course has the 1.6
    > crop factor; I turned in the 2x and kept the 1.4x. I like the combos very
    > much, btw.
    >
    > --
    > John McWilliams
    Stu, Oct 17, 2006
    #13
  14. embee

    Marten Guest

    "embee" <> wrote in message
    news:eh2uv7$p9q$...
    >
    > "Marten" <> wrote in message
    > news:5S6Zg.27478$P7.7307@edtnps89...
    >>

    >
    >>
    >> The EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM is a fabulous lens for candid portrait work at
    >> weddings and other gatherings. With f2.8 you can get beautiful bokeh.
    >>
    >>

    > Thank you for that - do you have any experience of using it with a 2x
    > converter? I must admit, this is the lens I would choose if it wasn't for
    > the fact I sometimes need more reach.
    >


    There are comprimises to be made with any lens decision. I find with a 2x
    extender the picture is a bit softer and the autofocus is too slow to track
    kids running towards me in a soccer game. If they are moving across the
    field in the same focal plane it is OK. Sometimes I wish I had the 100-400 L
    lens. Most of the time I wish I had more money. Then the decisions become
    easier.

    Bill Hilton's post is excellent.

    Marten
    Marten, Oct 17, 2006
    #14
  15. embee

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > Bill Hilton wrote:
    >
    > Here's a site that compares the image quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
    > w/ 2x to the 100-400 ...
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml ...
    > elsewhere on this site there's a test of the 100-400 vs the 400 f/5.6 L
    > too.


    Just to add on to my own post ... here are the links to further tests
    of the 100-400 vs the 400 f/5.6 L ...

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/DXO-Tests/dxo-canon-400mm.shtml

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

    This is why I recommended the 70-200 f/4 plus either the fixed 300 IS
    or 400 if you really need the extra reach and want the best optically
    quality at this price point ...

    What really bothers me personally about the 1-4 is the vignetting,
    especially with the 1Ds (full frame). But you won't see that with the
    1.6x bodies.

    What I like about the 1-4 is the wide zoom range and IS, but before
    almost every long trip to Alaska (which is the place I bought this lens
    for) or Africa I find myself debating whether or not to take the
    100-400 or the 70-200 and when I take the 1-4 I don't like the results
    and when I don't I miss the versatility but seem to get better images.
    Now I almost never take it.

    One final comment on the 100-400 and push-pull zooms in general for
    digital ... my wife just got a new Rebel XTi as a backup and I was
    testing the dust removal functions. When using lenses with fixed rear
    elements I didn't pick up extra dust beyond the 25 specks that were on
    the sensor when I got the camera, but when I ran a test with the
    100-400, zooming back and forth many times to blow air into the
    chamber, I picked up ten new dust specks on the sensor.

    So if you are shooting digital and bothered by sensor dust you'll
    probably have more issues with the push-pull type zooms than with fixed
    rear element lenses. All three of the 70-200 Canon zooms have fixed
    rear elements, as do the fixed focal length lenses mentioned.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Oct 17, 2006
    #15
  16. embee

    JC Dill Guest

    On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:31:57 +0100, "embee" <>
    wrote:

    >I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN

    <snip>
    > I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
    >(particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I would
    >like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.


    I shoot a 1DMII and occasionally borrow a 1DMIIn. My primary work is
    action work (sport, horse events, etc.), and I also do a lot of
    candids. You can see my work at: http://gallery.equinephotoart.com

    >I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM,


    I own this lens, and absolutely love it. This lens lives on my
    camera, and occasionally I swap it with the 24-70 L (which I'm in the
    process of buying) when I need a wider view. I don't know of anyone
    who has anything bad to say about this lens except for the price
    and/or weight, but since you are moving down from a BigMo the weight
    shouldn't be an issue for you and IMHO there simply isn't a better
    lens for the price. You DO get what you pay for with this lens.

    >with a 2x extender or the EF
    >100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.


    I have a friend who owns this lens and who loans it to me
    occasionally. I really don't like using this lens. The zoom isn't
    nearly as smooth, the lens isn't as fast, and I don't like how it's
    not sealed (how dusty air can get sucked into the lens when zooming).
    I also don't like the zoom adjustment setting (where the lens zooms
    more freely, or not as freely, or you can lock the lens at one zoom).
    When I have the option, I would only use this lens if I absolutely
    needed greater range than can be had with my 70-200. (Sometimes I
    didn't have the option, sometimes I needed 2 telephoto cameras working
    at the same time so my 70-200 is on one body and the 100-400 on the
    other body.) This lens is not one I'm considering purchasing.

    My friend also loans me his 1.4x extender, which I use with my 70-200.
    I also love that combo - the lens can't go below f4 with the 1.4
    attached but the extended range with the 1.4 is very nice. I'm going
    to rent a 2x and try that with my lens to compare, and then decide
    which one to purchase.

    At a local soccer match there was another pro photographer with 2
    cameras going at once. He had the 70-200 with a 2x on one body, on a
    strap around his neck, and a 600 on the other body mounted on a
    monopod. He would twist the 600 around so the lens extended back over
    his shoulder while shooting with the 70-200 kit:

    <http://equinephotoart.exposuremanager.com/p/sports-misc/2006-09-02-jcd-ls1f511154>
    <http://equinephotoart.exposuremanager.com/p/sports-misc/2006-09-02-jcd-ls1f463251>

    The 600 is on my wishlist for 2007.

    jc

    --

    "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
    of different horses without having to own that many."
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
    JC Dill, Oct 18, 2006
    #16
  17. embee

    Frank ess Guest

    JC Dill wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:31:57 +0100, "embee" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN

    > <snip>
    >> I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
    >> (particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot).
    >> I would like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.

    >
    > I shoot a 1DMII and occasionally borrow a 1DMIIn. My primary work
    > is
    > action work (sport, horse events, etc.), and I also do a lot of
    > candids. You can see my work at: http://gallery.equinephotoart.com
    >
    >> I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM,

    >
    > I own this lens, and absolutely love it. This lens lives on my
    > camera, and occasionally I swap it with the 24-70 L (which I'm in
    > the
    > process of buying) when I need a wider view. I don't know of anyone
    > who has anything bad to say about this lens except for the price
    > and/or weight,


    Re: the 24-70 L. There were apparently some focusing problems with a
    number of early examples, since resolved, I think. Seems to me the new
    new ones should be good, and any used ones in use must have been
    corrected by now. I got one second-hand on eBay, saved a couple-three
    hundred, and it was used but perfect. 24mm on a FF is verging on
    really wide, and 70mm is close to portrait country. Nice piece of kit.

    --
    Frank ess

    > but since you are moving down from a BigMo the weight
    > shouldn't be an issue for you and IMHO there simply isn't a better
    > lens for the price. You DO get what you pay for with this lens.
    >
    >> with a 2x extender or the EF
    >> 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

    >
    > I have a friend who owns this lens and who loans it to me
    > occasionally. I really don't like using this lens. The zoom isn't
    > nearly as smooth, the lens isn't as fast, and I don't like how it's
    > not sealed (how dusty air can get sucked into the lens when
    > zooming).
    > I also don't like the zoom adjustment setting (where the lens zooms
    > more freely, or not as freely, or you can lock the lens at one
    > zoom).
    > When I have the option, I would only use this lens if I absolutely
    > needed greater range than can be had with my 70-200. (Sometimes I
    > didn't have the option, sometimes I needed 2 telephoto cameras
    > working
    > at the same time so my 70-200 is on one body and the 100-400 on the
    > other body.) This lens is not one I'm considering purchasing.
    >
    > My friend also loans me his 1.4x extender, which I use with my
    > 70-200.
    > I also love that combo - the lens can't go below f4 with the 1.4
    > attached but the extended range with the 1.4 is very nice. I'm
    > going
    > to rent a 2x and try that with my lens to compare, and then decide
    > which one to purchase.
    >
    > At a local soccer match there was another pro photographer with 2
    > cameras going at once. He had the 70-200 with a 2x on one body, on
    > a
    > strap around his neck, and a 600 on the other body mounted on a
    > monopod. He would twist the 600 around so the lens extended back
    > over
    > his shoulder while shooting with the 70-200 kit:
    >
    > <http://equinephotoart.exposuremanager.com/p/sports-misc/2006-09-02-jcd-ls1f511154>
    > <http://equinephotoart.exposuremanager.com/p/sports-misc/2006-09-02-jcd-ls1f463251>
    >
    > The 600 is on my wishlist for 2007.
    >
    > jc
    Frank ess, Oct 18, 2006
    #17
  18. embee

    Mardon Guest

    "embee" <> wrote:

    > I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or
    > the EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
    > I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I
    > wondered if anybody here would be kind enough to share their
    > experience of either/both of these lenses to help me evaluate my
    > best option.


    I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and love this lens. I find that my
    1.4x converter produces reasonably good images and still allows f/4.
    For weekend candid shots of the type you describe, I think this lens
    would be perfect. My only 'problem' with this lens is that I find
    it a bit too short for field sports and even some types of hockey
    shots. Even with the 1.4x mounted, it is not quite long enough for
    good close-up shots of the plays, players' emotions, etc. I do not
    consider the 2x to be a reasonable option because of the f/5.6
    maximum aperture and reduced image quality. For indoor sports like
    hockey, 5.6 is just not fast enough. In addition, I would never go
    for a tele without image stabilization. It's just too useful;
    especially for the kind of candids that you describe. I can easily
    handhold my 70-200 IS lens at 200mm and 1/160 sec. For sports I
    almost always use a monopod. I've decided that my next tele will be
    a 300 f/2.8 L IS. With the 1.4x this will give 420mm at f/4. It's a
    very pricey lens but I figure it 's the best next step for me to go
    longer. BTW, if I were in your shoes and had neither lens, I'd still
    buy the 200mm f/2.8 IS and a 1.4x first and then get the 300mm f/2.8
    IS when I figured I both needed it and could afford it. BTW, I never
    considered the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS because of it's mediocre
    reputation for picture quality and because of its slow 5.6 maximum
    aperture at 400mm.
    Mardon, Oct 18, 2006
    #18
  19. embee

    JC Dill Guest

    On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:43:50 -0700, "Frank ess" <>
    wrote:

    >JC Dill wrote:
    > occasionally I swap it with the 24-70 L (which I'm in
    >> the process of buying)

    >
    >Re: the 24-70 L. There were apparently some focusing problems with a
    >number of early examples, since resolved, I think. Seems to me the new
    >new ones should be good, and any used ones in use must have been
    >corrected by now. I got one second-hand on eBay, saved a couple-three
    >hundred, and it was used but perfect. 24mm on a FF is verging on
    >really wide, and 70mm is close to portrait country. Nice piece of kit.


    Thanks for that info, I didn't know that. Fortunately it doesn't
    apply with this lens because the one I'm buying belongs to my friend
    and I've used it numerous times with no problems.

    jc


    --

    "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
    of different horses without having to own that many."
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
    JC Dill, Oct 19, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Krkec

    Dilema FujiFilm FinePix S304 ???????????????

    Krkec, Aug 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    662
    kloky
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. Dilema 9900

    , Jun 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    356
  3. Richard   C.

    Re: Dilema 3991

    Richard C., Jun 18, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    451
    David Kelly
    Jun 20, 2004
  4. Mike

    A hell of a dilema

    Mike, Nov 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    568
    Roger
    Nov 21, 2004
  5. AdamD

    Printer dilema

    AdamD, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    294
    Gene Palmiter
    Nov 29, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page