400 f5.6, 100-400, 500 f4 or mortgage? +views on prices returning to pre-crunch levels?

This thread is partly a bit of fun and partly serious, as I keep trying to pursuade myself that I've spent enough on this hobby for the next 5 years. But somehow I've found that I'm not listening to myself.


I currently
have a 5DII, 24-70, 70-200 f2.8 IS and 2x Extender. I would like
something longer and keep drooling over the 500 f4. But mostly it's
done in the way most people drool over expensive sports cars - ie I
doubt I'll ever buy it. The trouble is I'm not very good at that - I
tend not to bother looking at something lots if there's no way I could
ever afford it (ie, I don't find myself pouring over the Veyron specs
as a potential purchaser might). The sad truth is that I could afford
the 500 f4 - it would probably just be a rather foolish thing to buy.


I
also keep looking at the 100-400. But I've read mixed things about it.
And having used the 2x Extender with my 70-200 I really don't think
400mm is enough on full-frame. I also don't like the idea of
duplicating most of the range of my 70-200 - it just seems pointless.
Also, having had excellent results cropping very, very heavily with the
5DII's 21MP sensor on the 70-200, I'd like to be able to do that with
the 100-400 - but, having found that this isn't really possible with
the 2x Extender (which I almost never use now), I'm wary of trying to
do the same thing with the 100-400.


I guess I could go for the
400 f5.6, although I dislike the fact that it has no IS. Even so, I
could probably then crop to my heart's content if it really is
significantly sharper than the 100-400. But still, I've read 1DIII
users who weren't happy with the reach on their 400 5.6. They added a
1.4x Extender to their already 1.3x sensor - I can't, and it's also
0.3x "less" than theirs. But I could add an extender to a 500 f4. That
would be cool.


I have read that for serious birding, or for
aircraft shows etc, or for generally shooting fast flying things which
for some reason I enjoy, that you need "at least" a 500mm lens. But
maybe in some situations a 500 would be too much which would be just as
bad if not worse. Or maybe if it were too much the 70-200 will get in
adequately close enough for me to crop the difference later. I don't
know


Then there's the recent price hike. I bought my 5DII having got
wind of the increases before they happened, with the intention of it
being my last major purchase until things settled down. I don't mind
spending lots of money but only if it's a worthwhile long-term
investment. I hate the thought that prices could come back down,
especially as the 500 went from ~£3700 to £5k. Although I've read that
the yen was actually too cheap and is now more fairly priced, which
doesn't bode well for us ever returning to the prices of last year.


So
you know where I'm coming from with my thoughts, a bit of background -
I'm not a pro, just a keen amateur. I don't
actually have that much time for photography - and even less time for
actually doing something with my pictures once I've taken them. I'd
quite like to take pictures of birds and wildlife as this hobby as
awoken an interest in that sort of thing - before, I used to get
rapidly bored with being out and about with nature. But I do travel
with work quite a lot and many of my opportunities for photography are
while I'm away with work or on holiday - for which massive 500mm lenses
aren't ideal.


I'm 25 and have had a good job for a while. But I've been saving up for
a deposit on a house, having been waiting for some years for the UK
market to crash. I intend on buying once the dust has settled. All my
kit has been bought within the last year and at every stage I have not
intended on making further purchases. But I keep wanting more. All the
same most of the money hasn't come out of my savings - rather, it's
money that just hasn't gone in. A 500 f4 would make quite a large dent, though.


Either
way none of this is likely to happen until my girlfriend, who has the
potential of earning far more than I but having studied for longer
hasn't got her career going yet, has had a job for a while.


Please
help me at least to stop me wasting my time pointlessly reading reviews
comparing the 500 to the Bigma or whatever! (I don't really want a
Bigma ;) ).


Thanks in advance :D

400 doesn't have enough reach on a FF most of the time. I like the 100-400 but it stays on my 40D almost exclusively. In rare lower light, long range stuff I'll put it on the 5DmkII for the high ISO performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

I don't actually have that much time for photography - and even less time for actually doing something with my pictures once I've taken them.

---

I'm going to be straight up with you. In order to maximize the potential of any supertelephoto lens, you need to use it very often, you need to know its strengths and weaknesses. If you only use it once in a while and don't have time to review and study the images that you have taken, don't expect to get good results.


My recommendation for you is to get something cheaper to use for now, like the 100-400 or 400 f/5.6. If you're truly hooked into bird photgraphy after shooting with the 400, then you can always get the 500 f/4.


What you're experiencing right now is not the interest inphotography but GEAR LUST!


I apologize for being so blunt, but I want to get my message accross because I've seen a lot of poeple who bought their 500 and 600 and had to resell thembecause they found out that they didn't use it much or couldn't use it.


Nate,

Sinh - please don't apologise for being blunt, that's exactly the
response I'm after! I need someone to tell me not to be such a fool, to
be honest. Although, in fairness, even though you're probably not wrong about the gear lust, it is lust borne of having experienced the limitations of my existing kit. I say I don't have that much time for this hobby, which is true - especially for going somewhere just with the single intention of taking photographs. But I do take every opportunity I have. I nearly always have my camera with me wherever I go that isn't my routine commute to the office.


I do find it a bit frustrating that there's nothing above 400
available that isn't a bit cheapo with an unnecessarily large zoom
range, like the Bigmas, and isn't top-end and crazily expensive. It'd
be nice if Canon did a 500mm version of the 400 f5.6, or if Sigma made
something that wasn't such a compromise. One can but wish.


I think you're right - one of the two 400s are probably the best bet. I imagine I'll end up going for the prime to be honest. Thanks :)

I, too, suggest the 100-400. The 400 prime is sharper, but this can be out-weighed in many circustances by the flexibility of the zoom and IS. Furthermore, the IS will allow you to stop down more with TC. For example, the 100-400 and 1.4X or 2X TC can be stopped down to f/14 for increased sharpness, which helps to close the sharpness gap of the fixed focal. That's only possible with I.S. (For small subjects and close focus distances you'll want f/14 just for the DOF, especially while you are perfecting your manual focus technique.)


On the other hand, if you are certain you can make do without zoom and IS, the 400 would be a better choice. I suggest considering the 500mm f/4 only after you've had sufficient time with the 100-400+TC. Many amateurs will not want to give up the handholdability.

Stick with the Canon glass and go 100-400mm or 500mm.

I have a fairly similar lineup: 5DmkII, 24-105/4L IS, 85/1.8, 70-200/2.8L IS. I am a huge fan of IS which is why I chose the 24-105 over the 24-70/2.8L, although it was not an easy choice by any means. However, a critical difference is that I acquired all of this in the last 2 months. As such, I'm not in the market for a 500/4L IS. I'm not made of money.


Yet I too have been looking at the 200+ mm range, and I think it's only natural to want to consider covering as much focal length range as possible. I'm primarily interested in portraiture and street, which is why I have the above lenses. I've found that there have been times when I wished I had the 15/2.8 fisheye, or the 400/5.6L, or a macro (haven't settled on which one yet).


So the point is, you want to shoot certain things. You have an idea of your needs but to what extent are you going to be able to truly utilize what you get? What is the cost of ownership and what is the benefit? Have you factored in resale value? Since you have the 2x extender you already are able to shoot @ 400/5.6; although the quality is poor, you are at least able to get a sense of what it is like to work at that length. How often do you find you need to go there...and beyond? Do you feel like you are frequently missing shots because you are still too wide? That is the crux of the question.


So in my opinion, forget the 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS. That's not in contention because you don't have to have every length from 200-400mm covered. Once you get down to a sufficiently narrow angle of view, the difference in framing at various focal lengths is not enough to justify a continuous range. You would be better off in all respects with the 400/5.6L if you were thinking of the 100-400.


Furthermore you're not happy with your 2x extender because you're trying to use it on zooms, when you should be using it on primes. But you have no such primes! You should consider exchanging out the 2x for the 1.4x which is a better trade-off in quality and light loss vs. focal length gain.


Which brings us to the 500/4L IS. This is not a question of "do I buy it now, or later?"--because such a question is asked only by those who absolutely need it and know they need it, and the decision comes down to how to finance its purchase. Your question is "is the ownership of this lens justified?" You really want to go about hauling something like that around? It is not a trivial proposition. I can only infer from the indecision of your post that you've not quite gotten to the point where you have a concrete vision of what you will get from this lens. Perhaps your best bet is to rent one on a short-term basis.


Moreover, if you're considering a $5800 lens you may as well consider a $6800 lens, the 400/2.8L IS. The difference in native angle of view is only 1.17 degrees! Yet you gain 1 full stop of light and your previously "useless" 2x extender would allow AF @ 800/5.6. This is precisely the situation where one realizes the true value of the EF extenders. The 400/2.8L IS is, in my opinion, a much more versatile and useful lens in that price range. And that's more evidence, I'm sorry to say, that you've not thought this out quite thoroughly, since this lens wasn't even under consideration. If you're going to dream big, make it REALLY big.


Where does all this lead you? I'd say you should try the 400/5.6L if you just had to get something. It's a nice sharp lens at a reasonably low cost. For about a fifth the price, you are one stop slower and about a degree wider. Sadly you can't AF with either extender on this lens (unless you had a 1-series body), and you also lose IS. But until you know what you need, it's best not to splash out only to leave it gathering cobwebs later. You'd be surprised how often that happens.

I think this is a great question. I'll start with a disclaimer. I own four Canon digital bodies (XT, XTi, IDMKII, 5DMKII) and so many lenses I've lost count, so I might be a bit prone to buying gear. With that said, I'll just mention that the EF300mm f/2.8 and the EF400mm f/2.8 are amazing devices and I have even used them with the 2x extender with good results. If you are serious about image quality and passionate about photography, the big white lenseswill serve you well.


Now for the real advice...I've only had the 5DMKII for 3 or 4 months, but like you, I'm beginning to believe the biggest advantage of 22 megapixels is cropping, cropping and cropping. You simply may find you don't need a 400-600mm focal length when you can cropto insane levels with the 5DMKII.This is especially true at ISO-100usingthe EF70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM. I recently cropped a softball player,shot at about 60', down to a loose thread on her uniform before pixels began to show in the image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

I have read that for serious birding, or for
aircraft shows etc, or for generally shooting fast flying things which
for some reason I enjoy, that you need "at least" a 500mm lens.

---

Nonsense.


At least the birding part. I'm not a serious bird photographer, but Sinh is, and he uses a 400mm f/5.6. Take a look at his pictures if you have any doubts.


Yes, he is shooting with crop body. But 1) the 40D has only a slightly higher pixel density than the 5DII and 2) we aren't looking at his pics 1-1 anyhow... they're scaled way down.


I have no doubts Sinh could do great work with a 5DII and his 400mm f/5.6. (If I'm wrong, Sinh, speak up, and I'll gladly stand corrected [:)]).


If I wanted to do bird photography I would not hesitate to buy a 400mm for my 5DII (either the 400 f/5.6 or the 100-400) and use Sinh's photos as my inspiration.

I try to get out when I can to shoot local wildlife and wild birds. I'm currently shooting with a 300 mm F4L IS with a 1.4x Extender mounted most of the time, effectively giving it 420 mm F/5.6. Unfortunately, the wildlife in my neighbourhood are very shy and I can sure use more reach even though I'm using a 5D Mk II which has a lot of pixels to crop from.


The question of a 500 mm F4L IS is a good one, one that I'm asking myself as I can mount the 1.4x and get 700 mm F/5.6. Just the heavy weight and heavy cost . . .