Wildlife & some sports photography - long term lens decisions

[djzuk]

<div>


Hi everyone,


I've been researching telephoto lenses lately as I think I may desire to get into some serious wildlife photography and possibly some sports photography in my future. To start with, for my first telephoto lens, my budget would probably be in the $1000 range. If I knew I wouldn't be upgrading that lens in the future, there'd be no hesitation to choose the Canon 400mm f/5.6L as my main wildlife lens. However, I know that eventually I will most likely want to upgrade to the Canon 500mm f/4L IS lens for the more reach, extra stop of light, IS, and great teleconverter performance. At that time, it seems to me that the 400mm lens would rarely see any use and I might rather have a 300mm lens. I know that for both wildlife and sports, I may very well eventually want to purchase the 300mm f/2.8L IS lens.


I'd appreciate any advice as to which lenses I should purchase and in what order. I'd like to start out with something especially awesome in the $1000 range that will keep me satisfied for a good long time before the funds start coming in for the big super-tele lenses. My priority for the first lens is for wildlife. Eventually for sports I've been considering starting with the Canon 200mm f/2.8L prime. The Canon 500L is the longest lens I think I'm going to ever be willing to lug around. Especially seeing how great it performs with teleconverters. I also think I'll want to upgrade my 20D to either a 7D or 1D Mark III/IV sometime in the future.


So, in conclusion... which of these lenses (and camera) in what order? Please keep in mind that this will most likely be very long term, so I want to make the very best choices regarding which to purchase first.


Canon 400 f/5.6L
Canon 500 f/4L IS
Canon 300 f/2.8L IS
Canon 300 f/4L IS
Canon 200 f/2.8L
Canon 70-200 f/4L
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
Canon 1D Mark III/IV or 7D


Again, primary focus is wildlife. After that comes sports &amp; general nature. Any suggestions?


Thanks for your time!


Derrick
</div>

[neuroanatomist]

Just to clarify, what do you mean by, "in the $1000 range"? Of your entire list, only the 200mm f/2.8L II and the70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) fall under $1000. "Especially awesome" and "supertelephoto" and "$1000 dollar range" are mutually exclusive!


If by the $1K range you actually mean $1000-2000, I'd get one not on your list - the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. It's versatile, has great IQ, and is the longest lens with IS that you'll find in that price range. That will have minimal functional overlap with any of the high-end primes (i.e., if you have the 300mm f/4L IS and the 300mm f/2.8 IS you're not going to carry both, but you might carry a fast prime and a slower zoom). The 100-400mm will also 'teach' you whether 300mm is adequate for your subjects, if 400mm is too short, etc.


If you actually mean $1K or less, get the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS), but if you're set on primes, consider the 200mm f/2.8L II (I have one, it's quite nice!) and a 1.4x II teleconverter (the combo is a 280mm f/4 with very good IQ).

[djzuk]

Thanks for your response neuroanatomist.


By "in the $1000 range", I mean above $1000 but not too much more than that... around $1500 max (allows for 100-400 like you suggested).


I've considered the 100-400, but think I've decided that a 300/400 prime would suit me better along with a 70-200 zoom. By "especially awesome", I mean top IQ and functionality. I'm worried that the 100-400 would not be as satisfying while also being more expensive than either prime. Perhaps it would be a better starter lens though, and it would give me a feel of what focal lengths I would want for future primes. I will think more on that.


I've also considered starting out with just the 70-200 f/4L non-IS or 200 f/2.8L II with an extender. In that case, which road do you think will serve me better:


After 200 zoom/prime + extender,


- purchase400 f/5.6L and eventually decide between 300 f/2.8L IS and 500 f/4L IS
- purchase 300 f/4L IS and eventually 500 f/4L IS


I'd rather avoid selling lenses in the future, but understand that it might not be possible. As a wildlife photographer, which combos of lenses would you rather have?


Thanks,
Derrick

[neuroanatomist]

Well, in fact, I sold my EF 300mm f/4L IS and bought an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]L IS instead. I'm much happier with the flexibility of the zoom, and the extra 100mm on the long end, and I find the IQ to be excellent.


If you do go with the 200 f/2.8 prime or 70-200 f/4 zoom plus extender, I'd recommend shooting with that for a while and letting that guide your choice. If the 280mm is long enough, you'll know that. If your shutter speeds at 280mm are consistently 1/500 s or faster, then you won't need IS. The 400mm f/5.6L is billed as the classic birds-in-flight lens (long and lightweight, and no need for IS).


For general wildlife shooting, I think you'd be better off with the 300mm f/4L IS than the 400mm f/5.6L. You can buy a little flexibility without sacrificing much IQ by adding the 1.4x extender to the 300mm (but only if you're not going to use it like that all the time, else both the 100-400mm and the 400mm f/5.6 will deliver better IQ at 400mm than the 300mm + 1.4x).

[Jordan]

I got this one guys!


300mm f/4.


Here is why... I used to have a 100-400mm L and I liked it at the time, but found, over time, the photos aren't as sharp as with primes. The 300 is a constant f/4 whereas the other is 4.5-5.6. The 300mm is the same length, but a little thinner and MUCH lighter. Built in lens hood which is cool/nice. The images it takes are stunning and IS is the best I've seen yet. Now, EVENTUALLY I think you'll either want to get a 600 f/4 or, more likely, a 400 or 300 f/2.8. I say more likely because you can get THREE lengths from the 2.8s. I used a 400mm f/2.8 on the beach shooting surfers and it was nice because, on the 50D we used, we could get 400, 400 x 1.4 or 400 x 2. 400 with a 2x still takes beautiful photos! The 300 is the same if not better. The 400 is the most expensive and heaviest supertelephoto through the 500 f/4 mark, but the 300 is lighter and makes a great compromise. Plus, you can always crop if you need to but you can't widen a lens. The 300mm f/2.8 is considerably more expensive, but I recommend that if you can at some point. Oh yeah, and a 7D would ROCK over your 20D ;)


- Jordan

[Brendan7]

I second that - 300 f/4 is a better option than a 100-400 on almost all accounts.


Djzuk, I don't understand why you're comparing a 300 f/4 to a 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. If you have the money (and think you are at a skill level that would appropriate the purchase), buy the 500 f/4 or 300 f/2.8!!! It's that simple. However, the 500 f/4 is a bird lens. Not shooting birds 24/7? Then you don't need that lens. Need to shoot a football player running towards you in crappy lighting? Get the 300 f/2.8. If not the 300 f4 is a sharp, lighter alternative for 1/4 of the price.


I wouldn't buy the 400 f/5.6L as a main lens. It's too slow for many uses and this is where the 300 f/4 pulls ahead.


Now, every photographer wants more reach. But the difference between 300mm, 400mm and 500mm won't matter if you don't know how to find wildlife, how to photograph it, and how to approach it successfully. I have been able to fill the frame of my camera using a 300 f4 with a bird about 4'' long. Simple techniques for getting closer have saved me and other photographers $4000. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the value of extra reach. But that value dwindles when you're spending $5000 more. So if you have the $, get the 500 f/4, 400 f/2.8, or 300 f/2.8. If not, a 70-200 f/4 and 300 f/4 (with 1.4x TC as an addition) will do ya.


The 70-200 f/4 IS is a great lens for almost everything. Add that to a 300 f/4 and you have a nice telephoto coverage. So, I suggest those two.


Good Luck :)


brendan

[neuroanatomist]

The 300mm is the same length, but a little thinner and MUCH lighter. Built in lens hood which is cool/nice. The images it takes are stunning and IS is the best I've seen yet.


Just want to ask for clarification, 1) we're talking 48 oz. vs 42 oz. here, 12.5% lighter. I carried each around on hikes of several hours, and didn't notice a significant difference. Also, 2) do you mean the IS in the 300mm f/4L is the best? Compared to what? It's an old implementation of IS; the newest lenses provide 2 more stops of stabilization, and are faster and quiter.


One more viewpoint, shared from some I chatted with on the FM forums. He shoots wildlife, has an 800mm lens on one body. For his second body, he previously used a 100-400mm. About 3 months ago, he traded his 100-400mm for a 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x TC. Now, he's trying to sell/trade back the 300+1.4x combo and go back to the 100-400mm.

[Jordan]

I haven't looked up the ounces here but I was saying that I felt the 300mm f/4 was much lighter than the 100-400mm. Also, the IS on the 300mm f/4 (and the 24-105 which I didn't mention) to be much better than on the 100-400 and other IS lenses I've used. The 300mm f/4 is a very nice lens.

[Brendan7]

I'm going to list some other advantages of the 300 f/4 besides the aperture:


1. Better bokeh. Bokeh on the 100-400 can be terrible.


2. Slide-out lens hood. It's convenient and easy to use, unlike the 100-400's bulky, easy-to-scratch hood.


3. the 100-400 isn't sharp until 250mm.


4. the 300 f/4 is as sharp (if not sharper) at f/4 as the 100-400 at 300mm f/5.6.


5. Buying the 300 f/4 with extender gives you both the fast 300 f/4 and a very comparable 420mm f/5.6. Then get a 70-200 f/4 for better coverage of shorter focal lengths.


6. 300 f/4 is $500 cheaper! Come on, that's an advantage for those of us who don't have a money tree in our backyards!

[Brendan7]

OK Derrick....


I'd say get one of the 300mm lenses (2.8 or 4) and the 70-200 f/4. The 500 f/4 is a bird lens, the 300 f/2.8 can be bird, general wildlife, sports...whatever.


Good Luck!


brendan

[Fast Glass]

I know It's not on the list, but I would HIGHLY RECOMEND the 600mm f/4. The general rule in wildlife photography is too get the longest lens you can afford. Unless it is out your budget I would get that lens.


I have a cheapo 500mm f/8 and Minolta 600mm f/6.3 and the differance is quite signifant in terms of reach. You can get away without using a tele-extender more often with the longer lens.


Something to think about,


John.

[jcrowe87]

Just would like to refer to the OP and remind people that the budget sits around the 1-1.5k mark, making 80% of the suggested lenses far out of reach.


More on topic, I also have a 100-400 and have no complaints whatsoever. Considering its versatility it is a light lens with lots of uses. The IQ I have gotten out of it is very good, certainly L quality if nothing else. If you are looking to spend about 1500 or so, I would say that it is your best option to cover all your bases.

[Alan]

Brendan says the 300 f/4 with the 1.4 TC is good for IQ, yet neuroanatomist says the 400 f/5.6 is better IQ than the 300 TC combo.


Which is it? Which has better IQ?

[Mark Elberson]

Brendan says the 300 f/4 with the 1.4 TC is good for IQ, yet neuroanatomist says the 400 f/5.6 is better IQ than the 300 TC combo.


Which is it? Which has better IQ?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



You decide....


Comparing 400mm @ f/5.6 vs 420mm @ f/5.6 it's hands down the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS


Digital SLR and Lens Image Quality Comparison - ISO 12233 Chart 100% Crops ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLIComp=1&amp; APIComp=1&amp;LensComp=111&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0 &amp;FLI=7&amp;API=0)

[Alan]

Comparing 400mm @ f/5.6 vs 420mm @ f/5.6 it's hands down the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS


Digital SLR and Lens Image Quality Comparison - ISO 12233 Chart 100% Crops ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLIComp=1&amp; APIComp=1&amp;LensComp=111&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0 &amp;FLI=7&amp;API=0)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Yep. It is. Thanks, Mark.

[neuroanatomist]

<div>
<div>


I haven't looked up the ounces here but I was saying that I felt the 300mm f/4 was much lighter than the 100-400mm. Also, the IS on the 300mm f/4 (and the 24-105 which I didn't mention) to be much better than on the 100-400 and other IS lenses I've used.


I'd agree with the first part - because it's skinner and a bit lighter, the 300mm does feel lighter in the hands than the 100-400mm, especially when you first pick them up, or when the 100-400 is pushed out to 400mm. But, at the end of a day of shooting, I didn't feel any difference between them.


What other IS lenses have you used? I must say, the IS on theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM completely blows away the IS on either the 300mm f/4L or the 100-400mm, in terms of stabilization and 'feel'. Personally, I really hated the clunk every time the IS on the 300mm f/4 started up. I didn't notice any difference in the relative performance of the IS systems on the 300mm f/4L and the 100-400mm (except that at 400mm f/5.6, 2 stops of stabilization means a faster shutter speed is needed than on a 300mm at f/4). They are the same IS design - the lenses were released one year apart.
<div>
More on topic, I also have a 100-400 and have no complaints whatsoever. Considering its versatility it is a light lens with lots of uses. The IQ I have gotten out of it is very good, certainly L quality if nothing else. If you are looking to spend about 1500 or so, I would say that it is your best option to cover all your bases.</div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>



Comparing 400mm @ f/5.6 vs 420mm @ f/5.6 it's hands down the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS


These are the reasons I absolutely prefer the 100-400mm to the 300mm f/4 - more versatility, more reach, and better IQ at 400mm (compared to the 300mm f/4 + 1.4x, not to the 400mm prime, obviously). IQ is usually worse with a TC than with a native lens, although it really seems to me that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II at 280mm f/4 rivals the 300mm f/4L ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=4&amp;API= 1&amp;LensComp=111&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =0&amp;APIComp=1)!


Derrick - one thing you might want to consider prior to making an investment is renting one or more of these lenses you're considering right now. Minimally, bring your camera to a brick-and-mortar store and try them out!

[Jon Ruyle]

IQ is usually worse with a TC than with a native lens, although it really seems to me that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II at 280mm f/4 rivals the 300mm f/4L ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=4&amp;API= 1&amp;LensComp=111&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =0&amp;APIComp=1)!


In the center, maybe. But the prime looks far better to me in midframe and the corners. (As it had better... the day an L prime loses to a zoom + extender is the day I throw said L prime in the trash [:)] )

[djzuk]

Wow, thanks for all of your responses. This forum rocks! [:)]


Ok, I'll try to reply to all of your suggestions in order here...


neuroanatomist,
I do believe that if I got the 300mm f/4L IS, I'd use it mostly with the 1.4x teleconverter except for sports and nature uses. Though it may be a better choice in the long run if I decide going with the 500mm f/4L IS (200mm difference instead of just upgrading from a 400mm lens). I'm leaning towards either the 100-400 or the 300 with extender right now as they are lenses that will give me a feel for which focal lengths I want for the subjects I shoot. The 100-400, as has been said already in this thread, would be an excellent lens to put on a 2nd body when shooting with a super-telephoto prime.


My other thought was that if I got the 400mm f/5.6L first (or immediately after the 70-200mm f/4L), it would teach me long-lens techniques and better wildlife photography skills. Even though it doesn't have IS, it might be worth the effort of learning how to shoot these subjects better. It might also be more rewarding (once I learn how to properly photograph wildlife subjects) since the 400 prime is superior in IQ and focusing.


bburns223,
I wasn't comparing the 300 f/4 to the 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4, I'm just wondering if the 300 f/4 or any of my other considerations would be a good starter choice when I know I'll eventually purchase at least one of the super-telephoto lenses.


Fast Glass,
I think the 500mm f/4 would better suit me for most purposes since it is hand-holdable, much easier to lug around and travel with, and better performance with TCs. But the 600mm can go into the considerations when I eventually need one of these lenses. Thanks for the suggestion.


neuroanatomist,
I agree that renting would be an excellent idea. It's definitely something that I'm keeping in mind.


I think right now my decision for my starter kit is down to these options:


1) 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
2) 70-200mm f/4L + 400mm f/5.6L + maybe 1.4x TC
3) 70-200mm f/4L + 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x TC


For the 70-200mm f/4L lens, I may be able to get a very good deal. My father is thinking of upgrading to the f/2.8, so he might give me a good price on the f/4. So this lens in addition to one of the primes would be very similar in price to the 100-400L.


I would like some thoughts on the 400mm f/5.6L versus the 500mm f/4L IS. Is the 500 really that superior and worth the upgrade from the 400 for shooting birds &amp; distant wildlife (for strictly handheld use)? Or should, as Fast Glass suggested, the 600mm f/4 be a better upgrade? I think it may be a better way to go for birds by getting the 400 f/5.6 and eventually the 600 f/4. Then for sports &amp; some wildlife &amp; nature &amp; pretty much everything I could get the 300mm f/2.8L IS. Anyways, all of these are distant dreams at this point, so back to the starter kit.


I think that if my father gives me a good deal on the 70-200 f/4L, then the 100-400 is out of the running. I'd rather have one of the primes. Will the 300mm be that big of a difference over the 200mm? I think maybe the 400 would be a better combo with the 70-200.


Ok, that's all for now. Thank you all very much for your thoughts. [:)]


Derrick

[Brendan7]

These are the reasons I absolutely prefer the 100-400mm to the 300mm f/4 - more versatility, more reach, and better IQ at 400mm (compared to the 300mm f/4 + 1.4x, not to the 400mm prime, obviously). IQ is usually worse with a TC than with a native lens, although it really seems to me that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II at 280mm f/4 rivals the 300mm f/4L ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=4&amp;API= 1&amp;LensComp=111&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =0&amp;APIComp=1)!


The 100-400 isn't sharp until at least 200mm wide open. But the real thing for most of us is this:


the 300 f/4 is as sharp at f/4 as the 100-400 at 300mm f/5.6. Plus, the 300 f/4 is $500 cheaper.

[neuroanatomist]

...but, the 100-400mm achieves 400mm f/5.6 with better IQ than the 300mm + 1.4x TC, and provides the ability to go shorter if necessary.


Had a great example of that in a nature preserve last week, when a fawn popped her head out of the brush about 8 feet from the path - I had just shot some birds at 400mm, and if I'd had the 300+1.4 on the camera, I'd have gotten great picture.....of the fawn's left eye and part of her ear. She stayed there for all of 5 seconds, then was gone. A quick zoom out to 100mm, though, and I got a great animal portrait in that fleeting moment.


I think Bryan sums it up rather nicely in his review of the 300mm prime - "...if you can live with 300mm f/5.6, the 100-400 L adds the great versatility of a wide focal length zoom range that includes 400mm. If 400mm is your goal, the 100-400 will give you better results than the 300 f/4 and 1.4x combo."


I'd also point out that 'most of you' aren't really most - the 100-400mm is a far more popular lens. Roger of LensRentals.com states that the 100-400 is their second most popular lens (behind only the 70-200 f/2.8L IS).



300 f/4 is $500 cheaper


That's a bit of an exaggeration. Check on Amazon.com: the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ("http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=electronics&amp;qid=1270814176&amp;sr =8-1) costs $1610, and300mm f/4L IS ("http://www.amazon.com/Canon-300mm-Telephoto-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=electronics&amp;qid=1270814020&amp;sr =8-1) is $1269 - a difference of $340. If you want 420mm from your prime and add in the 1.4x Extender II ("http://www.amazon.com/Canon-1-4X-Extender-Telephoto-Accessory/dp/B00009R6WL/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=electronics&amp;qid=1270814240&amp;sr =8-1) at $310, well, now you're talking about only a $30 difference.









1) 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
2) 70-200mm f/4L + 400mm f/5.6L + maybe 1.4x TC
3) 70-200mm f/4L + 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x TC


For the 70-200mm f/4L lens, I may be able to get a very good deal.






<div>That makes the decision a bit more difficult, I think. The 70-200mm f/4L is a very nice lens, and will have more uses than just wildlife. I suspect you'll find the 200mm long end of that lens to be to close to the 300mm prime, especially if you do add the TC for a 98-280mm zoom. So if you're getting a great deal there, I'd go with option #2. You may find you really enjoy shooting birds in flight, and keep using the 400mm f/5.6L for that even after you get a long supertele down the line.</div>

[djzuk]

That makes the decision a bit more difficult, I think. The 70-200mm f/4L is a very nice lens, and will have more uses than just wildlife. I suspect you'll find the 200mm long end of that lens to be to close to the 300mm prime, especially if you do add the TC for a 98-280mm zoom. So if you're getting a great deal there, I'd go with option #2. You may find you really enjoy shooting birds in flight, and keep using the 400mm f/5.6L for that even after you get a long supertele down the line.


That's my conclusion too at this point.


Thanks again for all of your advice. It's been really helpful. [:)]





Any takers on a 1D Mark III vs 7D debate? [;)]





Thanks,
Derrick

[neuroanatomist]

Any takers on a 1D Mark III vs 7D debate?


That's a difficult one! I have and really love the 7D - it's an awesome camera with top-notch features and IQ. But the 1-series is a whole other story... If you were debating the 1D4 vs. the 7D and could afford the 1D4, then I'd say go for it. But really, either will be a huge step up from your 20D. IMO, with camera bodies newer is generally better - most of the technological enhancements are for bodies, not lenses, and the upgrade cycle is shorter. For your 20D, there have been 3 updates since it was released in 2004, and a 4th is due soon, I think. The lenses we've been discussing are all &gt;10 years old in design, and still excellent!


Between the 7D and the 1D3, I'd get the 7D and put the remaining $2K toward that supertele.

[djzuk]

Between the 7D and the 1D3, I'd get the 7D and put the remaining $2K toward that supertele.


I was actually thinking of a used 1D3 which can be found around $2000. So the price difference would be about $500 I think. I think I agree with you though, get the 7D first and then eventually a 1D4 when it's cheaper. The main drawback to the 1D3 was the 10MP, so I think I may be happier with the 7D to hold me over until I need and can afford a 1D4. Not sure though, the 1D3 just keeps drawing me in. Faster, better IQ, fully weather-proof, integrated battery pack design, everything about it just screams professional. We'll see... the camera body purchase will not happen until I get several good lenses, so things will change by then.


Thanks,
Derrick

[Mark Elberson]

Any takers on a 1D Mark III vs 7D debate?

<div class="ForumPostButtons"]peety3 ("http://community.the-digital-picture.com/members/peety3/default.aspx)owns both of them. Herecently picked up a 7D.After shootinghis first event with it, heplans on picking up another one! I'd say that's a pretty good endorsement for the 7D. Check out this ("/forums/p/3571/29746.aspx#29746) thread.</div>

[Mark Elberson]

the 300 f/4 is as sharp at f/4 as the 100-400 at 300mm f/5.6. Plus, the 300 f/4 is $500 cheaper.



...but, the 100-400mm achieves 400mm f/5.6 with better IQ than the 300mm + 1.4x TC, and provides the ability to go shorter if necessary.



This has been one of the more heated debates on the forum next to the 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS vs the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, small pixel IQ vs large pixel IQ, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L vs the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, etc, etc. Let's not lose site that ALL Canon <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L glass is outstanding! We're lucky that we have so many options to agonize over. In the end you choose the tool that you feel will help you achieve your photographic goals. It's hard enough comparing zoom ranges of the exact same focal length (see above) let alone primes vs zooms. If you're the one doing the buying then choose the tool that you feel will help you achieve your photographic goals. Getting opinions from the members of this forum is probably the best thing you can do (after reading all of Bryan's reviews 1st!) to help you determine what will best suit your needs. For some of us that will be the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L. For others it will be the EF 24-105mm f/4.L IS.


Sorry for the off topic rant :-)

[Fast Glass]

I was all aboard on the 7D, but after a LOT of research I have finally settled on the 1D III. Better build, built in grip, weather sealled,faster AF, faster frames, larger view finder, better IQ. There was not justone thing that made me want a 1D III over a 7D, it was everything all together. It's just a pro camera.


True photographers don't care about resolution![:D]


John.

[djzuk]

I was all aboard on the 7D, but after a LOT of research I have finally settled on the 1D III. Better build, built in grip, weather sealled,faster AF, faster frames, larger view finder, better IQ. There was not justone thing that made me want a 1D III over a 7D, it was everything all together. It's just a pro camera.


True photographers don't care about resolution!/emoticons/emotion-2.gif


John.









You've just confirmed it for me John. I've been coming to the same conclusions. Thanks for your input! [:)]


Derrick

[Fast Glass]

I've been coming to the same conclusions.


Then I think you should follow your gut feeling and buy what you need.


John.

[Sheiky]

<div>



True photographers don't care about resolution!/emoticons/emotion-2.gif
</div>



I bet you wouldn't have bought it if it only had like 6MP [A] Here I said it! Now I feel a bit more like a true photographer again [:P][;)]

[Brendan7]

I guess I'm not a true photographer!!!


I love the 18mp of my 7D. I don't think it's a "care or not care" thing. Too few mp (10 on 1.3 crop???) or too many (haven't figured that one out yet) are bad. But a bigger substantial number is nice.

[Keith B]

True photographers don't care about resolution!/emoticons/emotion-2.gif


John.






WOW!

[Sheiky]

WOW!






Hmm I truly believed I saw more behind the "WOW!" [A]


I'm now exited about how John is going to talk himself out of this [;)] I guess all 5D2 and 7D owners are just a bunch of noobies looking for max megapixels to him [:P] hihi funny[:D]

[Keith B]

WOW!






Hmm I truly believed I saw more behind the "WOW!" /emoticons/emotion-13.gif







<div>


Yeah I at first I was pretty offended by the comment but then I took in account of the smiley face that punctuated the comment so I took back the rest of my comment.


By no means am I the greatest nor the truest of true photographer, but I do my share of commercial work and more than once I have seen MP requirements from clients. Rarely are they as low as 10MP these days. Another reason I retired my 40D.
</div>

[Jon Ruyle]

WOW!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Hmm I truly believed I saw more behind the "WOW!" /emoticons/emotion-13.gif


I'm now exited about how John is going to talk himself out of this /emoticons/emotion-5.gif I guess all 5D2 and 7D owners are just a bunch of noobies looking for max megapixels to him /emoticons/emotion-4.gif hihi funny/emoticons/emotion-2.gif
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Ken Rockwell is a noob, too. In his review of the 5DII, he said "no one needs 21mp" or some such. I think he was blowing out a different nostril when he reviewed the D3x, though. :)


(Sorry for dragging him into this...)

[Sheiky]

(Sorry for dragging him into this...)


Yea you should be punished for bringing his name up here [:P]


And yeah Keith I noticed that you were pretty serious about it, that's also what I liked. I just wanted to see how John Fast Glass was going to defend himself here for such words [;)]



<div>



By no means am I the greatest nor the truest of true photographer, but I do my share of commercial work and more than once I have seen MP requirements from clients. Rarely are they as low as 10MP these days. Another reason I retired my 40D.


I don't know what your idea of a true photographer is and I guess it's a personal thing, but in my mind (and I don't earn money with taking photos) I AM a true photographer. At least for my standards [8-|]



In his review of the 5DII, he said "no one needs 21mp" or some such


Need is a big word, but it comes in handy quite often to be honest [A]but most of the time for spontaneous, sports and non-planned shots. When you've got the time to make a good composition etc and you don't need to crop afterwards, 21MP could be a bit overkill I guess. I never bothered about it [A] And it sure comes in handy when you're printing big, I love it!
</div>

[Keith B]

And yeah Keith I noticed that you were pretty serious about it, that's also what I liked. I just wanted to see how John Fast Glass was going to defend himself here for such words /emoticons/emotion-5.gif
<div>



By no means am I the greatest nor the truest of true photographer, but I do my share of commercial work and more than once I have seen MP requirements from clients. Rarely are they as low as 10MP these days. Another reason I retired my 40D.


I don't know what your idea of a true photographer is and I guess it's a personal thing, but in my mind (and I don't earn money with taking photos) I AM a true photographer. At least for my standards /emoticons/emotion-15.gif



</div>


I should have put quotes around truest of true. I don't need to justify myself to anyone. Obviously I feel I'm "true" by my and my client's standards, but evidentially not by Fast Glass', if in fact he was serious.












Ken Rockwell is a noob, too. In his review of the 5DII, he said "no one needs 21mp" or some such. I think he was blowing out a different nostril when he reviewed the D3x, though. :)


(Sorry for dragging him into this...)






I have friend that shoots with a 5D mkI and a book publisher refused him images because they weren't large enough. If the images couldn't span a 2 page spread at 300dpi they refused them.


It made him look pretty bad, the client was a well respected artist in the community and my friend photographed her whole gallery solely to publish them in the book and then the publisher refused them.


At least his camera is 5-6 years old, I feel bad for folks buying brand new Nikon d3 and d700s.

[Jon Ruyle]

I have friend that shoots with a 5D mkI and a book publisher refused him images because they weren't large enough. If the images couldn't span a 2 page spread at 300dpi they refused them.


Wow...



<span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;"]No one needs 21MP. All it does
is slow everything and clog your hard drive.


Once again, sorry for dragging him in to this :)

[Keith B]

I have friend that shoots with a 5D mkI and a book publisher refused him images because they weren't large enough. If the images couldn't span a 2 page spread at 300dpi they refused them.


Wow...





I know! At the time the 5D mkII wasn't out yet and he asked me "What am I going to do? I can't afford $7000 for 1Ds III."


He still hasn't upgraded. Most of his clients aren't that particular but if it comes up it can hurt. Especially if that artist tells a bunch of people that he is shooting with "subpar" equipment.

[djzuk]

Well, we got off topic here. [:D]


But oh well, I'll add my closing comment to the latest posts here.


I do believe that super-high-resolution is extremely important in some cases. But I feel that it's quite infrequent where 10mp is not enough. Especially in the case of wildlife and maybe sports photography, which was my original theme of this thread. [:P]


Why do I think that for wildlife and sports photography? For wildlife, Moose Peterson uses a D3/s which is 12mp. You think someone is going to decline his images because it's only 12mp? And for sports... as you know, the 1D has been extremely popular. Some pro sports photographers still use the 1D Mark II.


So anyways, I find that for my future purposes the 10mp of the 1D Mark III is probably plenty. However, by the time I get to the point of purchasing a new camera, the 1D Mark IV might be in the same price range that the Mark III is in right now. So we'll see... more megapixels can definitely help in some areas. [:)]


The end.


Derrick

[Fast Glass]

That was meant only to be a joke as the smilley indicated. Resoution is important. You would be verystuck upabout a 1 series to trully believe that.


For me I do not print and it's is purely a hobby for me, and I had a XTi for a long time as was happy with the resolution. I would rather have reliability, weather sealing, a little faster frame rate and other extras the 1D III has.


John.

[Brendan7]

But I feel that it's quite infrequent where 10mp is not enough. Especially in the case of wildlife and maybe sports photography, which was my original theme of this thread.


Wrong. Especially in wildlife photography a goal is to get as many pixels per animal. It's a priority and 10mp cameras would be at a serious disadvantage.

[djzuk]

Wrong. Especially in wildlife photography a goal is to get as many pixels per animal. It's a priority and 10mp cameras would be at a serious disadvantage.


I wouldn't say that's a main goal for wildlife photography. The goal is to photograph the animal with good composition that tells a story. I understand and honor your point of view, but I believe that, unless you are focal-length-limited and like to crop, 10mp is perfectly sufficient for a professional wildlife photographer. As I said before, Moose Peterson uses cameras with 12mp for everything he does. Instead of cropping later, he composes for the shot he wants in camera. Wildlife photography doesn't mean filling the frame completely with nothing but the animal.


Please forgive me if I took your statement in a way you didn't mean it.


Thanks,
Derrick

[Jordan]

I'm sorry but "Wrong. Especially in wildlife photography a goal is to get as many pixels per animal." is not at all accurate. I have a 7D (as I believe you do bburns) and it is an 18MP camera. 18MP is great because you can make huge prints, but does one really need to? 90% of non-studio photographers probably don't make prints any larger than a very small poster. 10-12MP is fine for that. Above 12MP and you really need to start making HUGE posters, advertisements, murals, etc to take advantage of the MP size. Now sure, it offers you the ability to crop, which is always handy. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, more MP is always better. But usually with more MP, other things AREN'T always equal. For instance it puts more noise on the sensor, lower frames per sec etc... I love my 7D and I love taking 18MP landscapes, but really, a 10MP PRO all weather-sealed camera that can shoot 10 frames a sec and has amazing focus and metering really IS a good camera - plain and simple. The 7D has a great AF system too though, and this entire debate isn't simple, I agree it's tough to choose between them. I just want to point out that "more MP the better" isn't something that's a "priority" at all really.


Hope you don't think I'm a jerk but I really want to share my viewpoint and I think the viewpoint of many others.

[neuroanatomist]

But I feel that it's quite infrequent where 10mp is not enough. Especially in the case of wildlife and maybe sports photography, which was my original theme of this thread.


Brendan has a point. For wildlife, you often want to fill a substantial part of your frame with the subject. There are a several ways to achieve that:

Get physically close. Getting really close to the wildlife is possible in some circumstances (I've been literally 3 feet from mountain gorillas in Rwanda), but not many. Wildlife is wild!
Get optically close. Use a really long lens (Moose Peterson uses a 600mm f/4 VR lens - he calls it 'essential for wildlife photographers') - the Nikon version of that lens will run you &gt;$10K, the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS is just over $8K. 12 megapixels are fine for Moose Peterson, since he has a 600mm lens.
Crop. Unless you're willing to shell out &gt;$8K on the lens, using a shorter lens and cropping the resulting is the only 'real' option for most people who want to shoot wildlife.



Most times, images are cropped by at least 50%. If you must crop, you generally need more megapixels. Now, if you are only planning on viewing your images on your computer or printing them at 8x10" or smaller, the 4-6 megapixels you'll have left after cropping your 10 megapixel 1DIII image will be fine. But at the beginning of this thread on choosing a lens for wildlife, you didn't list a 600mm ("essential for wildlife") lens among your choices. So if you want to 'get close' without actually getting physically or optically close, you're likely going to be cropping them - which means you'll benefit from the additional pixels of a newer camera body.



As I said before, Moose Peterson uses cameras with 12mp for everything he does. Instead of cropping later, he composes for the shot he wants in camera.


Exactly. For wildlife, he can do this primarily because he has a 600mm lens.

[Sheiky]

Nice verdict John (neuroanatomist)






That was meant only to be a joke as the smilley indicated. Resoution is important. You would be verystuck upabout a 1 series to trully believe that.


For me I do not print and it's is purely a hobby for me, and I had a XTi for a long time as was happy with the resolution. I would rather have reliability, weather sealing, a little faster frame rate and other extras the 1D III has.


John.






We know "other John" [:D] I just had to make you pay for such a statement [:P] Just messing around, that's what I do [;)]


While we're there, just out of curiosity: what is your idea of a true photographer? As English isn't my main-language my choice of lines isn't always good to say what I want to say, but here's my guess: a true photographer = someone who loves his hobby/work regardless of what he/she uses to get to his/her goals?


And to get back on topic Derrick [;)] for outdoorsports I would go with the reasonable priced 70-200 f4L, I shot a lot of sports with it and it does the job pretty good.


For wildlife I would consider more reach than a 300mm if in my case you already had the 70-200. A 100-400 is a very nice tool, I used it recently and it is a very nice, but also big lens. But I guess all long focal length lenses are big. Or you should consider a prime like 400mm or bigger.


To get 1 lens for both purposes I think you should get a 300mm f2.8 or f4 with extender. But I have to say that the versatility of a zoom is a real big advantage while shooting sports. And personally I think it is also a big advantage for wildlife.


Good luck!


Jan

[djzuk]

I completely agree with you neuroanatomist.


Moose Peterson does have a 600mm lens, but I believe the only area of wildlife photography where he uses that lens frequently is bird photography. For just about everything else, he says he mostly uses the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR and the 200mm f/2 VR. Bird photography isn't top on my priorities.


However, since it is essential in some cases, the 600mm has gone into my list of future lens options.



Most times, images are cropped by at least 50%. If you must crop, you generally need more megapixels. Now, if you are only planning on viewing your images on your computer or printing them at 8x10" or smaller, the 4-6 megapixels you'll have left after cropping your 10 megapixel 1DIII image will be fine. But at the beginning of this thread on choosing a lens for wildlife, you didn't list a 600mm ("essential for wildlife") lens among your choices. So if you want to 'get close' without actually getting physically or optically close, you're likely going to be cropping them - which means you'll benefit from the additional pixels of a newer camera body.


I believe that I will attempt to follow Moose Peterson's example by not cropping any wildlife photos. I think the challenge will teach me to become a better photographer. And if I do end up becoming a professional, I can justify the price of one of the super-telephoto lenses to help fill the frame. And probably a 1D Mark IV too, so I guess we're wasting our breath here. [;)]


Thanks for all of your input,
Derrick

[djzuk]

And to get back on topic Derrick /emoticons/emotion-5.gif for outdoorsports I would go with the reasonable priced 70-200 f4L, I shot a lot of sports with it and it does the job pretty good.


For wildlife I would consider more reach than a 300mm if in my case you already had the 70-200. A 100-400 is a very nice tool, I used it recently and it is a very nice, but also big lens. But I guess all long focal length lenses are big. Or you should consider a prime like 400mm or bigger.


To get 1 lens for both purposes I think you should get a 300mm f2.8 or f4 with extender. But I have to say that the versatility of a zoom is a real big advantage while shooting sports. And personally I think it is also a big advantage for wildlife.


Good luck!


Jan





Thanks for your input (and for helping this get back on topic [;)]). I have used the 70-200 f4L for sports on a few occasions (borrowing it from my dad), and it did quite well. As it got further into evening it didn't do so hot, especially on my 20D (ISO 3200 is quite noisy [:)]). But a very good lens for daytime. I believe I've decided on this and the 400 prime for my starting kit.


So I'm unofficially closing the thread. You may continue to debate and add suggestions in here if you wish, but I'm not going to respond anymore. Thank you all so much for your input! It's been very helpful. Now it's time to save up some money. [;)]


Thanks,
Derrick

[neuroanatomist]

70-200 f4L for sports ...a very good lens for daytime. I believe I've decided on this and the 400 prime for my starting kit.





Derrick, that combination sounds like a very versatile and useful kit! I think you'll be very happy with that setup. [:)]

[Sheiky]

+1[Y] Good luck mate!

[Fast Glass]

My defintion of a true photographer is a person that does not have a car, house, and spends all his money on gear:) Actually a person that tryies to get the best possible shot for a given situation. While not compramising on IQ, as long as he can help it, and as long he can afford it.:)

John.

[Jon Ruyle]

I *need* my house... to keep my lenses in.


I *need* my car... to get me to the stuff I want to photograph.


But then, I never claimed to be a real photographer...

[Sheiky]

Thanks John, I guess I can live with that [:D]






I *need* my house... to keep my lenses in.


I *need* my car... to get me to the stuff I want to photograph.


But then, I never claimed to be a real photographer...





Thanks for saying it yourself [;)]I just read your bio and I quote:



<h4 class="CommonContentBoxHeader"]"My Bio</h4>
<div class="CommonContentBoxContent"]


I like to take pictures."


Haha superb!That's the best definition of a true photographer I can think of![:D]


Jon, you're probably a very humble pro photographer whose photos overrule mine by a mile and a half no matter what [8-|] but I like that [Y] Also just a a hint if you want to grow ^^: you could also live and store your lenses in a tent and ride a bicycle instead of a car to go to the spots you want and spend the remaining cash on some more photography-equipment [A]
</div>

[Brendan7]

I wouldn't say that's a main goal for wildlife photography.



10mp is perfectly sufficient for a professional wildlife photographer.


The idea of "pixels per bird" is very important. Check Arthur Morris and Markus Jais, they'll second that. In wildlife photography you want the most detail per animal possible, and be able to crop and resize without worry. (Where's Daniel Browning to explain this when we need him!) And pixel density doesn't prevent you from using good composition or telling a story. But it does help, and megapixels DO matter a good amount.


Jordan, I don't think you're a jerk (of course) and this is a very controversial topic as far as photography goes. But I can say for myself (and pros believe the same) that cameras with higher MP counts can lay down more detail per animal and facilitate post-processing. In short, wildlife photographers need as many pixels per animal as they can get. Well, there is a limit to what's reasonable, but at the end of the day an 18mp camera like the Canon 7D has a big advantage over a 12mp camera like Nikon's D300s.


Moose Peterson may use 12mp, but I'm sure he'd agree that a camera with more pixel density can be helpful.


my 2&cent;


brendan

[Jon Ruyle]

I like to take pictures."


Haha superb!That's the best definition of a true photographer I can think of!/emoticons/emotion-2.gif





If that's the definition, then I'm a photographer. I love taking pictures. But unlike others on this forum, I'm not an artist or a professional.