Canon (EF 100-400 L + EF 24-105) or EF 28-300

[Miketown]

Hello,


I'm frustrated with my canon 350D + EF-S 18-55 (standard) especially to shoot animals and birds at distance. I'm looking to invest on new lenses.


Is it better to buy as it is about the same price and I should cover a good range with that:


1) EF 100-400 L + EF 24-105 L or


2) EF 28-300 L


I don't mind having to lenses instead of one, I think it's better to have the 24-105 as a more multi use lense and change it as needed for long distance shot. What are you thoughts on this?


Does L lenses work well with the 350 D, is it worth investing in good lenses with a poor case like the 350 D?


Does the 3 lenses mentionned above fit the 350 D or should I buy some adapter (diameter)?


Thanks for you help


Mike

[clemmb]

The 350D can take some fantastic pics with L glass on it. The 350D is not a poor case just outdated like computers. You can find many on the post your best bird shots using the 400D. There is always a better faster one but the 350D is fine. You will find most on this forum will suggest glass before body upgrade.


For what you are looking for I would suggest EF 100-400 L + EF 24-105 L.


Mark

[neuroanatomist]

Welcome to the TDP forums!






Is it better to buy as it is about the same price and I should cover a good range with that:


1) EF 100-400 L + EF 24-105 L or


2) EF 28-300 L





#1 would be the better choice, I think. I have both of those lenses, and they work quite well on my 1.6x crop body (7D). The 28-300mm is a compromise lens; image quality with the other two is better, and you gain 100mm on the long end, and 4mm on the wide end (and that 4mm is noticeable).



Does L lenses work well with the 350 D, is it worth investing in good lenses with a poor case like the 350 D?


Yes and yes. Having better lenses will improve your IQ more than a newer camera.



Does the 3 lenses mentionned above fit the 350 D or should I buy some adapter (diameter)?


They will work fine. Any EF lens or EF-S lens will work on your camera.



I think it's better to have the 24-105 as a more multi use lense and change it as needed for long distance shot. What are you thoughts on this?


Not to add confusion, but have you also considered the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM? IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom on a 1.6x crop body. Reasons not to get it would be if you plan to purchase a full frame camera soon, or if you really find you don't use the 18-24mm region of your current kit lens. 17mm is substantially wider than 24mm.


Good luck with your decision(s)!


--John

[peety3]

I'm glad you don't mind having two lenses instead of one. Someday you may own more than a dozen lenses (I certainly intend to).


My standard advice is to only focus on the next lens you're going to buy. If I had the 350D and the 18-55, I'd probably be looking at the 24-105 also, or perhaps the 17-55/2.8IS. Once you make that purchase decision, you'll need to consider if you want a telephoto next or a true wide-angle lens. Once you get to that point, ask here again and we'll guide you there.


I will say that the 28-300 and the 100-400 are the two white lenses I never plan to purchase.

[TucsonTRD]

Mike,


I would suggest option number one.





peety,


Out of curiosity, why do you never intend to own the 100-400? I know there are personal tastes/opinions, but I thought the 100-400 was considered a great lens and it is probably next on my purchase list.

[Chris White]

I also vote for number one. The IQ is better than the 28-300. The 28-300 is certainly L quality glass, but to get that range comprises must be made.



peety,


Out of curiosity, why do you never intend to own the 100-400? I know there are personal tastes/opinions, but I thought the 100-400 was considered a great lens and it is probably next on my purchase list.





Ditto. The 100-400 is on my short list too.

[peety3]

peety,


Out of curiosity, why do you never intend to own the 100-400? I know there are personal tastes/opinions, but I thought the 100-400 was considered a great lens and it is probably next on my purchase list.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I'm a multi-camera shooter, period. Silly trip with family? I'll take two cameras, at least. Work wants me to take a few pictures of datacenter network racks? I'll take two cameras. Golf tournament? Two cameras in others' hands for posed foursome shots, two cameras for me to shoot everything and everywhere else. You get the picture. So if I have at least two cameras and I'm shooting a lot of long stuff, I already have a 70-200/2.8IS. I can put a 300/4 or 400/5.6 on the second camera, and get as good if not better shots on the long end, while using my much better 70-200 on the shorter end.


Although I don't do much tripod shooting, I see the value in it and have two tripods on the plan. The 100-400, in my opinion, is not a tripod shooter's lens, because of the drastic shift in balance point. I also hate the zoom tension clutch, as it requires two hands to adjust, but walks loose all the time.


After I "duplicate" the wide/general/tele kit so my fiance can have good glass for her two cameras, I'm going straight to the 300/4IS. After that is the 85L, and the 400/5.6. "But peety, why buy the 300/4 and the 400/5.6 when you could just buy the 100-400?" She "gets" the 300/4 (she needs IS more than I do - I can manage shutter speed better than her), and I "get" the 400. Two more lenses later, I plan to get the 500/4 (yeah, I dream a lot).

[neuroanatomist]

Someday you may own more than a dozen lenses (I certainly intend to).


I'm 75% of the way there... [;)]



I will say that the 28-300 and the 100-400 are the two white lenses I never plan to purchase.


I also never plan to purchase the 28-300mm (or any superzoom), but I would have echoed the others' questions about why not the 100-400mm, so thanks for answering that.


From Mike's perspective, which is probably true for most people, carrying two cameras is not a likely possibility. Two people carrying four cameras is even more unlikely scenario, I think. I applaud you for taking two cameras on a silly trip with your family. Personally, I need my hands free for playing and toddler-grabs. For that, the BlackRapid strap is a wonderful piece of gear that allows me to carry a camera more easily than the neck strap, but I wouldn't want two cameras hanging off me. For me, family outings are mostly about family - I try to limit myself to the camera and one or two lenses (a standard zoom and the 85L, or 100L macro, or the 70-300 DO which I got specifically as a portable alternative to the 100-400mm just for such family outings).



Ialso hate the zoom tension clutch, as it requires two hands to adjust, but walks loose all the time.


I use my 100-400mm a lot, and I think I've adjusted the tension ring all of two or three times.



I'm going straight to the 300/4IS. After that is the 85L, and the 400/5.6. "But peety, why buy the 300/4 and the 400/5.6 when you could just buy the 100-400?" She "gets" the 300/4 (she needs IS more than I do - I can manage shutter speed better than her), and I "get" the 400.


IMO, the 100-400mm is the best choice for shooting wildlife while mobile. I had (and sold) the 300mm f/4L IS - as a prime, it lacked the flexibility I needed for wildlife and birds. If all I shot was birds primarily at a backyard feeder setup (I don't have one), the 300 f/4L would be a good choice. Likewise, it would be fine if, like you, I was carrying a second camera with my 70-200mm. Neither is the case. I'm not a big fan of the 400mm f/5.6 - that's a really long focal length to shoot without IS, no matter how steady your hands are. There's a reason it's got a reputation as a bird-in-flight lens, since you need those wing-stopping shutter speeds to handhold that lens in any case. The 100-400mm is the most affordable way to get IS in a 400mm lens without resorting to a teleconverter (and the IQ at 400mm is better than the 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x Extender).

[JJphoto]

I would go with 100-400mm(or400mm5.6 prime)+7d(or xxD) instead of 100-400mm+24-105mm+350D


for wildlife and bird, better AF and burst rate mean photos probably missed with slower body.


400mm 5.6 prime with 350D doesn't make a lot of sense since this lens is good for BIF IMO, however, I found out that at 1 hour before sunset(of cause in sunny day) you can easily get speed of 1/1250-1/2500 with ISO 200-400 on my 7D(at f5.6) , in this situation, IS is not a big deal when handholding you camera.


400mm 5.6 prime is also cheaper,lighter,smaller and better IQ than 100-400mm.


just my 2 cents

[Chris White]

the BlackRapid strap is a wonderful piece of gear that allows me to carry a camera more easily


Not to hijack the thread, but I am looking at the RS-4. I take it you like yours a lot John and would buy it again -- always the best recommendation. What model do you have?


Chris

[Miketown]

Ok, I'm going for the 100-400 + 24-105 and put the a 7D or xxD and the 17-55 F/2.8 on my Christmas list.


Thanks guys for the great support


Mike

[neuroanatomist]

Not to hijack the thread, but I am looking at the RS-4. I take it you like yours a lot John and would buy it again -- always the best recommendation. What model do you have?


I have the RS-4, and I'd definitely buy it again. The only complaint I had was that the metal-on-metal of the ConnectR (the carabiner-type ring on the strap) and the FastenR-2 (D-ring lug that threads into the tripod mount) makes a clicking noise when walking, especially with a heavier lens/camera combo. Not a problem on the street, but annoying when walking down a quiet trail through the woods. My solution to that was to dip the D-ring part of the FastenR into some Plasti-Dip (from Home Depot, like you'd use for a tool handle). Problem solved - quiet walking.

[neuroanatomist]

Ok, I'm going for the 100-400 + 24-105 and put the a 7D or xxD and the 17-55 F/2.8 on my Christmas list.


Just a side note here - a lot of people would say having both the 24-105mm f/4L IS the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is overkill, since they are both general purpose zooms. I have both, and I'd definitely recommend picking just one then getting other lenses (fast primes, etc.) before getting a second general purpose zoom. I got the 17-55mm f/2.8 first, and I still use it a lot. My primary reason for getting the 24-105mm was weather-sealing - I wanted to shoot in the rain. Until you have a weather-sealed body (the 7D is, but Rebels are not, and the xxD line has minimal sealing), weather-sealing on a lens doesn't mean anything. When I'm going somewhere, I never take them both. They are different lenses with different specifications, but they are intended for the same purpose - general use shooting. I think you'd be far better off picking one of them, and then looking at other different lenses next (the 85mm f/1.8 comes to mind as an excellent portrait lens, for example.)


So, look over your shots from the 18-55mm kit lens - do you use 18-24mm a lot? Are you at 55mm for a lot of your walkaround shots and still not close enough? Do you need the extra stop of light, or better OOF blur for portraits? Those are the factors to consider in comparing the 24-105mm and the 17-55mm.

[Chris White]

Thanks John, I am familiar with Plasti-Dip. I should have my RS-4 by the weekend.


Chris

[peety3]

From Mike's perspective, which is probably true for most people, carrying two cameras is not a likely possibility.





It's entirely possible that the second camera stays in the bag, merely standing by as a spare. Our two 7D bodies are too new to have presented with any problems, but I can only assume that it WILL happen someday.







Ialso hate the zoom tension clutch, as it requires two hands to adjust, but walks loose all the time.


I use my 100-400mm a lot, and I think I've adjusted the tension ring all of two or three times.





I've rented it twice, and probably adjusted it at least two to three times per day it got used.







I'm going straight to the 300/4IS. After that is the 85L, and the 400/5.6. "But peety, why buy the 300/4 and the 400/5.6 when you could just buy the 100-400?" She "gets" the 300/4 (she needs IS more than I do - I can manage shutter speed better than her), and I "get" the 400.


IMO, the 100-400mm is the best choice for shooting wildlife while mobile. I had (and sold) the 300mm f/4L IS - as a prime, it lacked the flexibility I needed for wildlife and birds. If all I shot was birds primarily at a backyard feeder setup (I don't have one), the 300 f/4L would be a good choice. Likewise, it would be fine if, like you, I was carrying a second camera with my 70-200mm. Neither is the case. I'm not a big fan of the 400mm f/5.6 - that's a really long focal length to shoot without IS, no matter how steady your hands are. There's a reason it's got a reputation as a bird-in-flight lens, since you need those wing-stopping shutter speeds to handhold that lens in any case. The 100-400mm is the most affordable way to get IS in a 400mm lens without resorting to a teleconverter (and the IQ at 400mm is better than the 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x Extender).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





You're probably right about the 100-400's usefulness, especially for those not aspiring to pro careers and such. I see myself continuing to pour large amounts of money into my photography hobby/addiction, with the hopes of it becoming a side or even main career at some point. As such, the 100-400 isn't for me - I see the 300/4 and 400/5.6 as interim steps but both would likely stay in my inventory for a long time.


That said, I do still stand by my original comment: decide what lens to buy next, not what lenses. Buy, learn, evaluate what's lacking, decide, buy, learn, repeat. I started with a 24-105; three weeks later I rented the 16-35, 70-200/2.8IS, and 100-400; it was too much to juggle. I may have my next twenty lenses planned out on my wishlist (dreamlist?), but the only thing I'm focused on is when the Mrs. will allow me to buy the next one (EF-S 10-22). :)