A fool's consideration..

<div>


I'm sure this isn't the forum to get any prudent advise in regards to practicality and frugality.. but here goes.


Last year I was sporting a Rebel XT with nothing but a kit lens. I have since been on an upgrade path that has been extremely rewarding. I started with the nifty fifty. Was THRILLED that I could take some of the lower light shots of my daughters that I was struggling with before. Then, rather than getting a new body right off.. I decided it was time for a serious lens upgrade.


I purchased theCanon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USMand was BLOWN AWAY by the image quality difference vs the kit lens (18-55 non IS). I Also purchased the new Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD, my first telephoto.Shortly after I bought, with much excitement, the EOS 7D and my Vanguard pistol grip ballhead tripod, followed by the Speedlite 430 ex II and the canon battery grip.


My local shop just ordered me the 100mm f/2.8L macro as well. (! so excited)


Here's my dilema: With me being a single parent my tax returns are going to be astronomical this year. I'm getting a little over six grand. (before you say it, the 500mm is out of the question. I have other things to purchase as well.) A few days ago I went on a shoot in search of bald eagles and had some success. Posted below is one of my favorites of the day.. it was handheld at 300mm with 100% crop.. and that's what's causing concern in my mind. I absolutely love my Tamron. They really got this one right.. I have used this lens for mostly wildlife.. and it just doesn't seem to reach long enough for me. I'm seriously considering selling it after just one month (with amazing pictures to show for it) for something with more reach. Any thoughts on what I should try and get for it? I purchased it for $450 with a $50 mail-in rebate. I was thinking $375 shipped.. $350? No idea.


I'm thinking that there will be aCanon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM in my bag as a replacement. I'm torn! I have very little experience with the 100-400. Only ever looked through someone else's viewfinder.. and that was on a 5D so it was still in the same ballpark as my 300mm on my 1.6x 7D. I am IN LOVE with the Tamron.. the VC does an amazing job stabalizing my photos. So I guess I'm looking to people with experience with the 100-400 to talk me into it. A big consideration for me. The Tamron 70-300mm is effectively 112mm-480mm and the 100-400 would be 160mm-640mm on my camera. (unless I completely misunderstand the way that works.)


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/1602.IMG_5F00_4493.jpg[/img]
<div></div>
</div>


Okay.. So I'm looking for things I may have overlooked.. "stop talking and buy the damn thing already"s.. Any wisdom or thoughts on the subject.


Thanks in advance,


Rocco

You eliminated the 500mm. But not the 300mm F2.8L. I bought mine used for $3700. When your using the 1.4extender you get 420mm, and hardly any drop in IQ. To me thats a very good way to go, moving down the list the 100-400mm would be next. I can tell you though, the IQ difference between the 100-400 and the 300mm at 420 is quit a bit, the 300mm is much better.


Of course the 1.6 crop factor will work the same on both no matter what the lens, the factor really doesn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocco

<div>


I am IN LOVE with the Tamron.. the VC does an amazing job stabalizing my photos.
<div></div>
</div>

---

My 2 cents...if you really love the image stabilization of your Tamron, the 100-400 might disappoint in that department. There are many, many people in these forums who use the 100-400 on a 7D and absolutely love it, but I returned mine in part because the IS (compared to the new Canon 70-300L) just wasn't good enough for my jittery hands.


I like the 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC idea. Makes me drool. [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

You eliminated the 500mm. But not the 300mm F2.8

---

If reach is the concern, why pay for a wide aperture like f/2.8? I would think (again- assuming reach is the primary concern) the 300 f/4, or better yet, the 400 f/5.6 would be a more appropriate choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

You eliminated the 500mm. But not the 300mm F2.8

---

If reach is the concern, why pay for a wide aperture like f/2.8? I would think (again- assuming reach is the primary concern) the 300 f/4, or better yet, the 400 f/5.6 would be a more appropriate choice.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Because you can put a 2X extender on the 300mm f/2.8 and still get a f/5.6 apeature and600mm, but you are only at 400mm with the 400mm f/5.6. The IQ drop is not that bad with the 2X extender and you have IS. With my Minolta 600mm f/6.3 (just 1/3 stop slower)I can just get away most of the time without using my 2x extender or cropping on a 1.6.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

If reach is the concern, why pay for a wide aperture like f/2.8? I would think (again- assuming reach is the primary concern) the 300 f/4, or better yet, the 400 f/5.6 would be a more appropriate choice.

---

Jon


To me reach wouldn't be the main concern, but the IQ you get would be. Maybe reach is the most important to the OP. The IQ of the 300 F4 with the 1.4 ex is less than the 100-400mm. Of course no IS with the 400 f5.6 or it might be the way to go.


The IQ of the 300mm with a 1.4 ex is much better than the 100-400mm. I have two lenses that I think the 1.4 ex are acceptable on, it is the 500mm F4 and the 300mm F 2.8, either one I see very little degradation in the IQ with the extender on. I have no lens that I think the 2 ex is acceptable on.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The IQ of the 300mm with a 1.4 ex is much better than the 100-400mm

---

I find that surprising, but since I have never used either, I will defer to your experience. Still, the 400 f/5.6 (at a quarter the price of the 300 f/2.8) will outdo either. Of course, as you point out, the 400 f/5.6 has no IS, which is sort of too bad :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Because you can put a 2X extender on the 300mm f/2.8 and still get a f/5.6 apeature and600mm, but you are only at 400mm with the 400mm f/5.6.

---

I believe that the 400 f/5.6 has at least as good IQ as the 300 f/2.8, assuming you crop both or extend both to the same angle of view. (Eg, 400mm + 1.4 should be at least as good as the 300mm + 2x), and the 400 is a quarter the price. But if the goal of the OP is to get the longest lens possible using extenders while retaining autofocus (f 5.6 or faster), then I agree that the wide aperture of the 300 has this advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

I find that surprising, but since I have never used either, I will defer to your experience. Still, the 400 f/5.6 (at a quarter the price of the 300 f/2.8) will outdo either. Of course, as you point out, the 400 f/5.6 has no IS, which is sort of too bad :)

---

Jon


I have never had the 400 F5.6 but looking at the charts you are right it would outperform.


If it were even half the price of the 300mm and it had IS it would be the way to go. Especially at half the weight. The 300mm F2.8 is not a lens you would want to own if you just wanted it to go on a walk and take a few bird pictures, its to heavy and big. The 400mm would be a lot more portable.


The portability argument is a good reason to choose the 100-400mm instead of the 300mm. The 100-400 you can still put it in a reasonably small case and carry it around with you.


A 400mm F5.6 with 4 stop IS, and IQ better than the 300mm F2.8 L with a 1.4 ex and at half the weight. Sign me up for a pre-order when it comes out.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

My 2 cents...if you really love the image stabilization of your Tamron, the 100-400 might disappoint in that department....Ilike the 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC idea. Makes me drool.

---

Note that if the IS in the 100-400mm disappoints, the IS in the 300mm f/2.8L IS will also disappoint, since it provides the same 2-stop reduction as the IS on the 100-400mm. So, maybe save your drool (and your $$$) for the new 300mm f/2.8L IS II?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The IQ of the 300 F4 with the 1.4 ex is less than the 100-400mm. Of course no IS with the 400 f5.6 or it might be the way to go.

---

This is the reason I went with the 100-400mm. Best IQ at 400mm in a lens with IS costing under $2K.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

This is the reason I went with the 100-400mm. Best IQ at 400mm in a lens with IS costing under $2K

---

John, it's just a matter of time. You just as well admit it. We will see the 300mm F2.8L and the 500mm F4L in the "Wallet full of $100 bills" Thread[:P]


Rick

The 500mm f/4L IS, perhaps MkII, is a distinct possibility. [A]


Incidentally, Amazon has the 500mm f/4L IS II for preorder, at $9500 (and the 600mm MkII lists for $12000).


Honestly, though, if Canon releases a 400mm f/5.6L IS, or better yet a 500mm f/5.6L IS, I think I'd prefer either of those to the 500/4 I or II.

I gather you intend to pursue shooting wildlife, and that is the focus of your equipment upgrade?


Well, you are making a classic "upgrade" error. See this related article: www.bythom.com/support.htm (note: some of the specific products mentioned are out-dated, do your research before buying)


I refer you to that article, as it serves double duty. First - If you want to make stunning wildlife images, get a dedicated lens and don't take half-steps along the way. The already mentioned EF 400 f/5.6 is my recommendation as well. It out performs the 100-400 right where you need it, at 400mm. Yes, it has no IS, but you need to shoot on a tripod for a while if you really want to improve your images. IS on tripod is still helpful, but more for the true super-teles such as the 500, 600 and 800. I've owned the 100-400, shot with it for a number of years, it is excellent for a zoom of it's age. If you want to just walk around, blasting away at subjects - well, that's fun too, sometimes, and you could ignore the rest of my advice and just get one. But you won't get stunning images except by luck.


Which brings me to the second reason for linking the article - you need a serious support system, and that's what I think you should spend a goodly chunk of money on. Probably $500 - $600 on a tripod at minimum if you want carbon fiber. Get a dedicated "gymbal" type ballhead. Or, you could use a quality ballhead and something like a Wimberley Sidekick which would be appropriate to your equipment size and weight. Pick up a lens plate to mount the whole shebang....Throw $40 at a "Better beamer" flash extender.


That'll get you started, but don't ignore the most important piece of equipment, the one between your ears. There are plenty of wildlife photography websites, I personally find the free newsletters sent out by 'Birds as Art' to be the best, most informative source that exists. That will lead you to many other resources that I won't link here.


Happy shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Honestly, though, if Canon releases a 400mm f/5.6L IS, or better yet a 500mm f/5.6L IS, I think I'd prefer either of those to the 500/4 I or II.

---

John, the problem for those f5.6 lenses are that they don't auto focus when use with the 1.4X TC on a 1.6X body, sadly enough so far, anything longer than 400mm is not cheap. I think for a guy with full of money in his wallet , a big long lens is a better choice.





I have 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 5.6 but no 100-400mm, if I want to save some money, the 400mm 5.6 is my first choice, set your Tv to 1/1250 or up, the IS is not a big deal any more and of course the tripod will help. wild life subject are almost never stop moving, why IS is such a big deal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The 300mm F2.8 is not a lens you would want to own if you just wanted it to go on a walk and take a few bird pictures, its to heavy and big.

---

I have to disagree with you here. I have aMinolta 300mm f/4.5 and my Minolta 600mm f/6.3 and couldn't think the weight between the two would be a differentiationing factor.It is acompletely different class of lens. The 300mm f/2.8 weighs exactally as much is my Minolta 600mmand I have shot it handheld for three hours straightand it didn't bother me at all. The weight and size down sides evaporate when you use the lens and the pictures it produces.[:)] To me at least apeture is worth more than IS, most of the time I need a high shutter speed just to stop motion blur of my subject and it's usually higher the the minimum shutter speed needed to hand hold the lens. Auto focus also is worth more than IS, a shot with all the image quality in the world is useless if it's not in focus which is a big plus for the 300mm f/2.8. And to top it all off it still hasIS.[Y]


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

I have to disagree with you here. I have aMinolta 300mm f/4.5 and my Minolta 600mm f/6.3 and couldn't think the weight between the two would be a differentiationing factor.It is acompletely different class of lens. The 300mm f/2.8 weighs exactally as much is my Minolta 600mmand I have shot it handheld for three hours straightand it didn't bother me at all. The weight and size down sides evaporate when you use the lens and the pictures it produces.[img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img] To me at least apeture is worth more than IS, most of the time I need a high shutter speed just to stop motion blur of my subject and it's usually higher the the minimum shutter speed needed to hand hold the lens. Auto focus also is worth more than IS, a shot with all the image quality in the world is useless if it's not in focus which is a big plus for the 300mm f/2.8. And to top it all off it still hasIS.[img]/emoticons/emotion-21.gif[/img]

---

John


That line was a bit out of context. I agree with exactly what you are saying and because of the great IQ of the 300mm is why I would choose to carry it around as well. I was suggesting the 300mm as a very good choice.


But to, I believe that any one considering this lens should take its size and weight in to consideration. While you and I can carry it around all day, that may not be the best choice for everyone. For instance my wife, I have let her carry the 100-400mm around on trips before, she will get tired of carrying it after a while. I know that she wouldn't last long at all with the 300mm. My brother is another example, while the size he could handle easily, would be happy with the results out of the 100-400mm and on most trips choose it over the 300mm because the IQ is satisfactory to him from the 100-400mm.


I have been taking my 300mm with me to work the last two weeks, and as hard as I try calling it a walk around lens just doesn't seem right. But it sounds like, for you and I any way, it may meet that definition.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

for you and I any way, it may meet that definition.

---

Come on guys, were you trying to show us some muscle here? just kidding!, but seriously, if you hand held 6-7 pound all the time and think no problem, think it again!, you'll most likely have some shoulder, neck or back problem later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJphoto

Come on guys, were you trying to show us some muscle here? just kidding!, but seriously, if you hand held 6-7 pound all the time and think no problem, think it again!, you'll most likely have some shoulder, neck or back problem later.

---

I can hand hold the 300mm with no problem. But if you use that neck strap for very long, your asking for neck problems.


And why do they even put a neck strap on the 500mm....seriously. Maybe for safety if you drop the lens the strap will catch it and break your neck instead. At least you don't break your lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

And why do they even put a neck strap on the 500mm....seriously. Maybe for safety if you drop the lens the strap will catch it and break your neck instead. At least you don't break your lens.

---

Lol, and the weaker you neck is the safer you lens will be.[:D]

If you use the neck strap around the camera body, it puts too much strain on the mount...plenty of pics on the web of sheared EF mounts on the lens...one reason why they added more screws to the new extenders.

Anyone here use Blackrapid Straps? The biggest load I've put on it is just my 7D with 70-200mm f/4L so it's not even comparable to the weight you guys are talking about, but I'd bet it would support the weight.There's no neck strain what so ever since it goes across the shoulder. Works wonders for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wtlloyd

If you use the neck strap around the camera body, it puts too much strain on the mount...plenty of pics on the web of sheared EF mounts on the lens...one reason why they added more screws to the new extenders.

---

Thats what I kind of figured. Its idiot proofing. Give them a way to hang the huge lens off there neck that wont break the camera, and maybe they will figure out that a 9 pound wieght shouldn't be around there neck on there own without tearing up their equipment.

Thank you for the well thought out replies guys. I have made my decision, based largely on your thoughts and considerations that didn't even occur to me. Also, realized a huge mistake I had made that day with the bald eagles because of this thread.


[quote=wtlloyd]


I gather you intend to pursue shooting wildlife, and that is the focus of your equipment upgrade?


Well, you are making a classic "upgrade" error. See this related article: [url="http://www.bythom.com/support.htm]www.bythom.com/support.htm[/url] (note: some of the specific products mentioned are out-dated, do your research before buying)


I refer you to that article, as it serves double duty. First - If you want to make stunning wildlife images, get a dedicated lens and don't take half-steps along the way. The already mentioned EF 400 f/5.6 is my recommendation as well. It out performs the 100-400 right where you need it, at 400mm. Yes, it has no IS, but you need to shoot on a tripod for a while if you really want to improve your images. IS on tripod is still helpful, but more for the true super-teles such as the 500, 600 and 800. I've owned the 100-400, shot with it for a number of years, it is excellent for a zoom of it's age. If you want to just walk around, blasting away at subjects - well, that's fun too, sometimes, and you could ignore the rest of my advice and just get one. But you won't get stunning images except by luck.


Which brings me to the second reason for linking the article - you need a serious support system, and that's what I think you should spend a goodly chunk of money on. Probably $500 - $600 on a tripod at minimum if you want carbon fiber. Get a dedicated "gymbal" type ballhead. Or, you could use a quality ballhead and something like a Wimberley Sidekick which would be appropriate to your equipment size and weight. Pick up a lens plate to mount the whole shebang....Throw $40 at a "Better beamer" flash extender.



[/quote]


Wildlife is indeed the reason for the upgrade. I totally see what you mean about the "classic upgrade error". I was looking to completely replace my Tamron.. a lens I'm thrilled with, for something even more versatile.. I never stopped to consider that a high quality prime will almost always have better IQ at it's respective length.. And the second part of your post brings me to my mistake the other day. I DIDN'T EVEN THINK TO BRING MY TRIPOD. Derp!! With the eagles being as far away as they were, even at 300mm, and cropping as much as I did, I was an idiot to shoot handheld. Even if it were on my tripod, Tamron suggests disabling IS, which in my mind means IS should be an after thought in my decision making process for a 400mm+ lens.


As far as the tripod suggestion goes.. I purchased one last November, I believe it to be a good one, but have never mounted a lens with the collar to it.. so I'm not sure exactly how that would work? A lens plate necessary for that kind of a setup?


My tripod:


<span id="btAsinTitle"]Vanguard Alta Pro 263AT Aluminum Tripod with GH-100 Pistol Grip Ball Head


<span>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

My 2 cents...if you really love the image stabilization of your Tamron, the 100-400 might disappoint in that department...

---

I'm keeping it for my walking around. [:D]When I'm in need of more reach, I'll bring out the Prime. Ultimately, I needed to be a little budget consious. I have decided on the 400mm f/5.6.[Y]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

To me reach wouldn't be the main concern, but the IQ you get would be. Maybe reach is the most important to the OP. The IQ of the 300 F4 with the 1.4 ex is less than the 100-400mm. Of course no IS with the 400 f5.6 or it might be the way to go.

---

More reach, of course, but IQ needs to still be there. That's why I was only considering an L class lens as a replacement. Otherwise I would have gone with one of those Optika monstrosities. Haha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TakahiroW4047

<div>


Anyone here useBlackrapid Straps? The biggest load I've put on it is just my 7D with 70-200mm f/4L so it's not even comparable to the weight you guys are talking about, but I'd bet it would support the weight.There's no neck strain what so ever since it goes across the shoulder. Works wonders for me.

---

<div>
<div>


I also have a Blackrapid strap. Obviously I have no experience using it with one of the ultra telephotos, but the difference was more than noticeable with my Tamron.





Again, I'm extremely pleased with this site. I've done tons more reading than posting and I'm grateful to you all.





Happy shooting,


-Rocco
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

wtlloyd,


Just looked at the Wimberley Sidekick, promising, but not sure if it will work with the Vanguard GH-100 Pistol Grip Ball Head's quick release system. It's one of those round ones. Guess that's the bad thing about companies moving away from any type of industry standard.

Take a look at NatureScapes.com website store and at ReallyRightStuff.com to get an idea of the ballhead/lens/camera plate relationship and what types of items are out there at various price points.

Close your eyes, take a deep breath and quietly tell yourself that you have been a good person and a good parent and you deserve better. Then open your eyes, go straight to B&amp;H (actually use the links on this site) and order that 500 f/4 IS, or 600 f/4 IS. I guarantee you that after half an hour of using it, you will forget how much you paid for it. Those little 100-400, 300 f/4 IS, 300 f/2.8 IS, 400 f/5.6 are girl lenses....lol lol :) :) :): :)

Update: Ended up getting the 400mm f/5.6 and I am IN LOVE with that lens. I

Thanks for the update, Rocco.

Rocco, 400mm 5.6 is a fantastic bird lens, it