Which EF lens/extender to get < 600mm?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by This Old Man, Jan 2, 2004.

  1. This Old Man

    This Old Man Guest

    I've got the EF 70-200mm f/4L and the 1.4 extender with a 300D it gets me to
    448mm equiv, but I'm still wanting more. I think about 200mm more would do.
    I've budgeted $1500 - maybe $2000 if I sell the 70-200mm f/4L.

    I'm considering the following (USA model prices from bhphoto.com):

    EF 300mm f/4L IS USM, $1140
    EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, $1399
    EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, $1130 (add 2.0 extender for $300)
    EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, $1100

    The Image Stabilization would be nice to have at the ready but mostly my
    subjects are moving, and not in a way that panning is always needed.

    I was leaning toward the 100-400mm but maybe it's time for me to move up(?)
    to a prime and get the 300mm f/4L, which is a bit lighter. Except for the
    fact the zoom is too short for my purposes, I really love my 70-200mm f/4L
    with the extender so I'm thinking I might be very happy with another f/4L.

    Though I have not ruled it out, the 400mm f/5.6 it is sold out (in both US
    and import versions) and I don't see any on ebay at the moment. Oh well, it
    looks a bit big anyway!

    Thanks for your thoughts.
     
    This Old Man, Jan 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. This Old Man

    Mark M Guest

    "This Old Man" <> wrote in message
    news:hA8Jb.5816$...
    > I've got the EF 70-200mm f/4L and the 1.4 extender with a 300D it gets me

    to
    > 448mm equiv, but I'm still wanting more. I think about 200mm more would

    do.
    > I've budgeted $1500 - maybe $2000 if I sell the 70-200mm f/4L.
    >
    > I'm considering the following (USA model prices from bhphoto.com):
    >
    > EF 300mm f/4L IS USM, $1140
    > EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, $1399
    > EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, $1130 (add 2.0 extender for $300)
    > EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, $1100
    >
    > The Image Stabilization would be nice to have at the ready but mostly my
    > subjects are moving, and not in a way that panning is always needed.
    >
    > I was leaning toward the 100-400mm but maybe it's time for me to move

    up(?)
    > to a prime and get the 300mm f/4L, which is a bit lighter. Except for the
    > fact the zoom is too short for my purposes, I really love my 70-200mm f/4L
    > with the extender so I'm thinking I might be very happy with another f/4L.
    >
    > Though I have not ruled it out, the 400mm f/5.6 it is sold out (in both US
    > and import versions) and I don't see any on ebay at the moment. Oh well,

    it
    > looks a bit big anyway!
    >
    > Thanks for your thoughts.


    I would HIGHLY recommend that you stick with an IS lens.
    Remember, that even though you're not REALLY at 640mm (400mm lens with 1.6x
    factor), the effects of camera shake are just as severe as if it was really
    that long (when enlarged similarly on screen or in print). Have you ever
    hand-held a 600mm+ lens? Unless you're shooting in BRIGHT sunlight (a
    crummy light to shoot under, BTW), you'll be very much hampered by shake. I
    have both the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 100-400 IS. The optics and available
    speed (large aperture) of the 2.8 is a major advantage. And while the
    100-400 does provide more reach, it's not ALL that much more than the 70-200
    with 1.4x attached. Keep in mind here, too, that your 300D will not allow
    you to auto-focus with the 100-400 when a 1.4 is attached, so that's not an
    option (only lenses with 5.6 or larger will autofocus on all but the EOS 3,
    1V, or 1* digital versions. **There is a "hack" to get around this, but you
    will NOT be happy with autofocus performance).

    I would recommend either the 70-200 2.8 IS with 2x (which will give you 5.6
    and maintain AF), or simply go with the 100-400, keeping in mind that you
    will lose autofocus if you use the extender the extender (and also be
    dealing with a S-L-O-W f8 while trying to shoot motion--a bad thing).

    For pure optic quality, you'd do better to use the fixed 400 5.6, but that
    may limit you depending on your needs/habits without the zoom. You'd get
    better resolution/clarity than with the 100-400 though, and the same 5.6.

    I have thought about these things in part due to my acquisition of the
    70-200 2.8 IS, and have considered selling my 100-400, but have not decided.
    I will tell you...that the 100-400 is a GREAT lens that has produced some
    stunning results. While it is by no means favorably comparable to Canon's
    magnificent 400 2.8 IS, it is also $5000 less. :)

    -Mark M
     
    Mark M, Jan 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. This Old Man

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "This Old Man"

    >I've got the EF 70-200mm f/4L and the 1.4 extender with a 300D it gets me to
    >448mm equiv, but I'm still wanting more. I think about 200mm more would do.
    >I've budgeted $1500 - maybe $2000 if I sell the 70-200mm f/4L.


    I would try to keep the 70-200 f/4 L, it's a very nice lens. My wife has one
    (I have the f/2.8 version) and I borrow hers often.

    >I'm considering the following (USA model prices from bhphoto.com):
    >
    >EF 300mm f/4L IS USM, $1140
    >EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, $1399
    >EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, $1130 (add 2.0 extender for $300)
    >EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, $1100


    My wife and I have all of these (except my 300 f/4 L is the older non-IS
    version). Comments following ...

    >The Image Stabilization would be nice to have at the ready but mostly my
    >subjects are moving, and not in a way that panning is always needed.


    If you're sure you don't need it then you won't miss it. I felt the same way
    when I got the 300 f/4 since I was almost always using a tripod, then I went to
    Alaska where you might shoot from a viewing platform for bears or from a
    shuttle bus in Denali at wolves or from an airplane on a flight-seeing trip
    over Denali or from a boat viewing wildlife ... I wish I had bought the IS
    version then.

    But if you're SURE ... then don't buy it. I wouldn't buy another long lens
    without it (currently have the 100-400 IS and the 500 f/4 IS).

    >I was leaning toward the 100-400mm but maybe it's time for me to move up(?)
    >to a prime and get the 300mm f/4L, which is a bit lighter.


    I like the wide focal range, relatively light weight/compactness and the IS
    feature of the 100-400, but I never seem to get critically sharp images from
    it, compared to the fixed focal length lenses. It's very handy though and a
    good all-around choice. I use it a lot more than I did the fixed 300 even
    though the optics of the 300 are superb. (We bought the 300 and 400 L's before
    the 100-400 came out, btw).

    >Though I have not ruled it out, the 400mm f/5.6 it is sold out (in both US
    >and import versions) and I don't see any on ebay at the moment. Oh well, it
    >looks a bit big anyway!


    We used this one mainly for birds in flight, it's a wonderful lens for that,
    but again now that we have the 100-400 we don't carry it as often as before,
    even though the optics are a bit better than the 100-400. The IS and the
    advantage of a 4:1 zoom make the 100-400 a more useful, versatile lens.

    >EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, $1130 (add 2.0 extender for $300)


    I don't think you're gaining anything here over the 70-200 f/4 except the extra
    stop, and it's costing you twice the $$ and almost twice the weight and bulk.
    I'm guessing you want this for the 2x so you can AF at f/5.6 ... several tests
    have shown the 100-400 is better optically at 400 than the 70-20 f/2.8 with the
    2x t/c, FWIW. Personally I love my 70-200 f/2.8 and if I can only take 2
    lenses on a wildlife shoot I take the 500 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8, but if I
    already had the f/4 I wouldn't bother trading in, and there are a lot of times
    when the lighter weight of the f/4 is a benefit, especially when hand-holding
    and shooting in cities, etc.

    Based on what you said I'd guess the 100-400 would be the best bet for you. I
    don't see too much advantage in trading in 70-200's and while the fixed focal
    length lenses are excellent optically they aren't as versatile as the zoom.
    Second choice would be to keep the 70-200 f/4 and get the 300 f/4 L ... that's
    a nice combo.

    >Thanks for your thoughts.


    Good luck!

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jan 2, 2004
    #3
  4. This Old Man

    jriegle Guest

    A fixed 400mm is often just too long (equiv. 640mm angle of view) for some
    situations. The 300mm f/4 L with IS is a better option. It is also a bit
    sharper than the 400/5.6. Being a bit shorter FL and a bit faster plus the
    IS means it has far better hand hold ability. Since you already have a 1.4x,
    you can use it with the 300/4 when you need more reach and still retain a
    usable f/5.6.
    John

    "This Old Man" <> wrote in message
    news:hA8Jb.5816$...
    > I've got the EF 70-200mm f/4L and the 1.4 extender with a 300D it gets me

    to
    > 448mm equiv, but I'm still wanting more. I think about 200mm more would

    do.
    > I've budgeted $1500 - maybe $2000 if I sell the 70-200mm f/4L.
    >
    > I'm considering the following (USA model prices from bhphoto.com):
    >
    > EF 300mm f/4L IS USM, $1140
    > EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, $1399
    > EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, $1130 (add 2.0 extender for $300)
    > EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, $1100
    >
    > The Image Stabilization would be nice to have at the ready but mostly my
    > subjects are moving, and not in a way that panning is always needed.
    >
    > I was leaning toward the 100-400mm but maybe it's time for me to move

    up(?)
    > to a prime and get the 300mm f/4L, which is a bit lighter. Except for the
    > fact the zoom is too short for my purposes, I really love my 70-200mm f/4L
    > with the extender so I'm thinking I might be very happy with another f/4L.
    >
    > Though I have not ruled it out, the 400mm f/5.6 it is sold out (in both US
    > and import versions) and I don't see any on ebay at the moment. Oh well,

    it
    > looks a bit big anyway!
    >
    > Thanks for your thoughts.
    >
    >
    >
     
    jriegle, Jan 2, 2004
    #4
  5. This Old Man

    Jim Davis Guest

    Re: Re: Which EF lens/extender to get < 600mm?

    On 02 Jan 2004 13:56:51 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
    wrote/replied to:

    >
    >I like the wide focal range, relatively light weight/compactness and the IS
    >feature of the 100-400, but I never seem to get critically sharp images from
    >it, compared to the fixed focal length lenses.


    I get sharp images from it and I love the IS. Highly recommended.
    Check here:
    http://jimdavis.oberro.com/html/detail.html
     
    Jim Davis, Jan 3, 2004
    #5
    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. Tom Pfeiffer

    Re: Sigma 600mm F8 Any users?

    Tom Pfeiffer, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,071
    Tom Pfeiffer
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Tom Pfeiffer

    Re: Sigma 600mm F8 Any users?

    Tom Pfeiffer, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,967
    Tom Pfeiffer
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. Hugo Drax

    Sigma 600mm EOSmount Mirror lens question

    Hugo Drax, Jan 31, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    6,661
    Alan D-W
    Feb 2, 2004
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    496
  5. restlessbaby

    CANON 600mm f/4L IS USM Telephoto Lens for 800.00

    restlessbaby, Apr 6, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    792
    Paul J Gans
    Apr 8, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page