Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
I think my original advice was a 70-200 f2.8 non IS with a monopod, if I remember correctly. And, looking over your choices, it
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
I think my 100-400mm would make a great safari lens!
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
Not that I am saying it would be the best choice, But why was the new 70-300mm F4-5.6L with IS not on the list. Not fast enough? I think the IS system would help a little withshutter speeds in low light compared to the non IS you are using now.
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
If shooting sports and complaining about the low light capability of f/4 I don
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
Maybe you should look at a Sigma 120 - 400mm or Sigma 150 - 500mm. They make vey nice products and you get more focal length for the money, of course it isn
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Of course, if he's using the extender with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L, he'd essentially have a 280mm f/4 lens on the long end. If he's using the 70-300 f/4-5.6, he'd be losing a stop of light at the comparable focal length when not using the extender.
This is true. I thinkasachoice for sports the 70-200m F2.8L would be best, I would prefer the IS version though.
The 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L is in the mix though. If it could be in the mix of possibles, it looked to me so could the 70-300mm. I think the compact 70-300mm might be a very good lens to take to Disneyland or on safari. Personally though, if I didn't have a suitable lens alreadyand were going on a real Safari that I had paid thousands of dollars to go on, I wouldn't take any of these lenses. I am thinking lensrental.com for that one.
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
HI Guys,
Thank you for your responses.
Is the weight of these lenses even a real issue?
Lets start from the top...
Sean that was your initial advice and I wanted to give you props for that. Sound Advice Sorry for the name misspell
HDNitehawk - The 70-300 L is too slow. I'm with Sean (Of course, if he's using the extender with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L, he'd essentially have a 280mm f/4 lens on the long end. If he's using the 70-300 f/4-5.6, he'd be losing a stop of light at the comparable focal length when not using the extender.) Without the extender I would have a 2.8 between 70-200 which the 70-300 L couldn't do. I do like the weather sealing and IS though.
John - I agree with you about not going lower than f/2.8, but you hear of the 70-200 f/4 Is being so highly regarded I thought is was worth throwing out there. I am considering the f/2.8 IS but am nervous about buying one used and haven't seen one on Canon's refurb. site forever. The 100-400 4-5.6 sounds good but the slow aperture doesn't. I could reach the same length with a 2x extender at the cost of some IQ and no Auto focus.
Joel - After reading Bryan's review of the 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma I wasn't too interested in them anymore. Although at photography-on-the.net/.../index.php they rave about the lens. Any contrary thoughts would be interesting.
I feel better about trying to land a 70-200 IS 1rst then non IS. Thanks for your thoughts,
Brett
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
Denise,
If I go that route I would absolutely consider your lens. Great price!
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
Hi Brett,
I think I still hear that horse breathing, let me beat him a little more!
If you need 300mm for outdoor sports then also consider the 300mm f/4L IS it is not weather sealed but it is better than the the 70-200mm f/2.8L +1.4X extender at 280mm. (see ISO Crops below)
http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=242&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
Here is for the 300mm f/4L IS compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS + 1.4X which is better than the non-IS version, but still not as good as the 300mm f/4L IS.
http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
Of course you loose the flexibility of the 70-200mm zoom, but you gain quality on the long end.
Here is the 300mm f/4L IS vs. the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + 1.4X extender.
http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
If you need the 300mm most of the time then the 300mm f/4L would be the way to go. If the 70-200mm f/4L that you own would work for you indoors then you can keep it, but I think the f/4 is really pushing it for indoor use unless you are using strobes.
If you need the 70-200mm and the ability to use the 1.4X extender frequently, then I would try to save up for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, because if you get this lens then it will amost feel like your getting 2 lenses for the price of one. By that, I mean that the version II is awesome from 70-200mm and it's also very acceptable at 280mm f/4L IS II with the 1.4x. Also as a bonus, I think the version II lens is even acceptable @ 400mm f/5.6 when using the 2X extender for limited use.
If you would like a compromise then the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS may be a compromise. I also realize that outdoor sports will be over in about 2 months, so this may influence your decision.
You really don't need IS for sports, but the IS lenses in this case are better lenses.
You need an f/2.8 lens if you would like to add an extender.
Weather sealing helps in a light rain, but if I were to shoot a game outside in the rain then I would use a rain cover, even if the lens was weather sealed.
Rich
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firephoto
HDNitehawk - The 70-300 L is too slow. I'm with Sean (Of course, if he's using the extender with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L, he'd essentially have a 280mm f/4 lens on the long end. If he's using the 70-300 f/4-5.6, he'd be losing a stop of light at the comparable focal length when not using the extender.) Without the extender I would have a 2.8 between 70-200 which the 70-300 L couldn't do. I do like the weather sealing and IS though.
It seems to me you have answered your own question then. The 100-400mm will be to slow as well. Which just leaves the 70-200mm F2.8L's and the only decision there will be how much do you have to spend. Version II, Version I with IS or the Non IS Version.
The other options would be primes, are they ruled out because of flexibility? Personally for sports I would more likely to pick up my 70-200mm F2.8L II before I would pick up any of my primes in that range. But only one I have with AF quick enough is the 100mm L Macro. I owned the 100-400mm L, and I would use the 100mm L Macro over the 100-400mm and crop the shots if they were going to stay between the100 to 200mm range. (for that matter I would take any prime over the 100-400mm, the exception is the 180mm which AF is to slow).
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
The 70-200mm f/2.8 works with a 2x extender, that make.s a f/5.6 aperture which your 7D still autofocuses at.
John.
Re: Is the Horse Dead Yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
The 70-200mm f/2.8 works with a 2x extender, that make.s a f/5.6 aperture which your 7D still autofocuses at.
I beleive he was talking about using the 70-200mm f/4L with the 2x extender, meaning f/8 and no AF except for the center point on 1-series bodies.
