L-Fever: What next?

Hi Community,

I have it: the L-Fever.

My equipment includes quite a few primes (24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135) and just some zooms (16-35, 24-105, 70-200, 70-300).

Now I got a wildcard as next lense approved by my wife :-) but I am really struggeling to cometo an decision. The following ideas are in my mind and I would like to hear your thoughts on those (disregard the price tag as I got a 'wildcard' ;-) )
1. 14 mm. That would mean I would sell the 16-35. But at the end I am quite happy with the zoom as it is fast and the iq is also great
2. 200 2.0 L. No doubt an improvement to my 70-200 2.8 II but than again I think a 300er or 400er would improve my equipment even more
3. 300 2.8 II, Would be much faster than my 70-300 and the IQ is better. What I like about it: It is handholdable. But for what would I use this prime? Sports no doubt and Wildlife. For both you can't have enough focal length in my opinion. So wouldn't be the 400er the better choice?
4. 400 2.8 II, great lense, Perfect for sports and wildlife. You could use it with a 1.4 or without. But the weight? Is this lense going to be so inconvinient that I would avoid using it? You have to take into account that I am not a pro and I love traveling without a tripod.

I look forward to your thoughts!

Cheers,
Chris

Hi Chris,

What are you finding that your current lenses don't do as well as you'd like?

Dave

Hi Chris and welcome;

Just my thoughts;
1. 14mm, I have the 24mm, 35mm and the 16-35. I never use the 16-35 anymore and have often thought of getting the 14mm. The 14mm is super wide and would be fun, but it really is a specialty lens.
2. 200mm 2.0L, if you shoot indoor sports it would be a good addition. But you have a 70-200mm II f/2.8 so I think you could benefit more by a different focal length.
3. Lots of uses for the 300 F2.8II. Even with the old version of this lens you could put a 1.4x on it and almost see very little loss in IQ. I own the old version, for the daughters softball games it is almost to long and I end up using my 70-200mm II sometimes. For the grandsons baseball games it is perfect. For the sons graduation in an indoor arena it is perfect. For Zoo trips it is perfect. For wildlife it is on the short side but with the tele convertors it can be adequate. The supertele's are big lenses, this one you can hand hold, but for me it isn't to much worse than carrying the 70-200mm II. The IQ is a very noticeable step up from the other lenses you own.
4. 400mm F/2.8 Forget this one unless you shoot pro sports. I have never seen a situation that I thought I would like to be carrying that thing around. There are better lenses for wildlife. Go with a 500mm II or a 600mm II for wildlife, more reach and IQ second to none. I have been to races, kids ball games, pro games and many other events in the last few years. Most pro events wouldn't allow a fan to carry it in. It would have been to long for the kids games.

Good Luck
Rick

Welcome to the forum, Chris. That's a nice collection of glass you have already. You don't say which camera(s) you are using (full-frame or crop?).

I have the 14mm and it's an excellent lens, but it's rare that I find a good opportunity to use it. Landscape shots can be quite difficult to compose without including your feet or some other unwanted detail in the frame. I often find, after cropping out these details, that I could have got the same shot with the 16-35 II. If you have the original 16-35 you might notice more or an upgrade in image quality but if you have the 16-35 II, stick with it for the versatility.

I have never used the 200 2.0L, but I did once borrow the older 200 1.8L. It produced great images but I was mostly using it at f/5.6 or f/8 since there was plently of light available. Unless you need the wider aperture, I'd say your 70-200 2.8 has this covered with much greater versatility at a fraction of the weight.

I have the 300 2.8 L IS (not the new II). I agree that the 300 II will give you better quality and speed than the 70-300 and should be hand holdable. It also has the benefit of being compatible with extenders, so I recommend getting a 1.4x and/or 2x extender if you opt for this lens. That would give you 420mm f/4 and/or 600mm f/5.6 for a fraction of the cost and weight of the longer primes.

I have never used a 400 2.8, but I have held one briefly and concluded that it would be too big and heavy to use without a tripod or monopod. Unless you need to get to 800mm with extenders, or you need 400mm at f/2.8, I recommend the 300mm + 1.4x extender.

@all thx for you responses and the welcomes!

@Andy I use a 5DMKII but upgrading to a 1D X soon. But all FF for sure.

@HDnitehawk: great comment. I think that is pretty much what I hoped for. The 300 or the 400 are those I am leaning towards. And probably 300 is good enough for most of the apllications I have. And for the rare wildlife occasions a TC will do just fine. The 400 is to mich of a beast for me. The pros should try to tame her but not me!

So the 300 it is. I'll just wait for the 1D X to arrive and than I am going to post some impressions of this combo!

Cheers
Chris

My choice if you were going for sports would be the 300mm f/2.8 II or if you are really ambitious the 400mm f/2.8 II. The latter could double as a decent wildlife lens as well. But if you are more into wildlife or birds (like I am) the 500mm II, 600mm II or best of all the 800mm gem. All of which would be much better options.

John.

I guess the big question is what you might be planning to use a new lens for?

If you do use the long end of the 70-300 enough, and don't feel the need to go longer, then a 300mm prime would be an excellent addition. Use the new version myself. It loves the 1.4x TC. For carrying and handholding, the 300 with TC is a LOT lighter than the the new 400mm. The new 500mm is 1.5 pounds lighter than the 400mm as well if you want even more reach. Might be pushing a lot of peoples limits to handhold for a while though. If a little more budget conscious the 300 f4 is a nice lens as well, and a lot lighter.

Your equipment list doesn't specify whether the 100 mm lens is the macro or not. Is that an area that holds any interest?

A TS-E lens is missing from your lineup...

Hi Chris and welcome,

You have a very nice Line-up there! It's hard to recommend a lens when we don't know exactly what your needs are. But, if you're interested in getting into more sports and wildlife, then the 300mm f/2.8L IS II on Full Frame is a little short. Certainly, I like the idea of adding the 1.4X and/or 2X as stated above. I have a 300mm f.2.8L IS version 1 and I almost always have the 1.4X on it, and I'm using a MKIV which is a 1.3 crop for 546mm. The 400mm f/2.8 II is still a baby beast and I probably wouldn't recommend that one for you either.

You have the 70-300mm for walking around and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II does take the 1.4X pretty well for 98-280mm f/4L IS II.

How about the Phantom 200-400mm f/4L IS with built-in 1.4X Extender. Some people feel that it will weigh about the same as the Nikon 200-400 f/4 (7.4 lbs) and others feel that it may weigh similar to the new Canon 500mm f/4L IS II (7 lbs). If these estimations are true, then that would put the weight at around 7 lbs. plus it would give you some nice flexibility in the longer focal ranges.

I know it's not available yet, but Canon did officially announce it's development last year, and as we know they have had a lot on their plate lately.

Here is a shot of it in the field:

http://blog.apertureacademy.com/2012/01/canon-200-400mm-and-600mm-prototype.html

More Info Here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx


I think that lens would look very nice on your new 1DX, if you can wait for it.

Come on, you know you want it!

Rich

Rich; I think you should give him good investment advice as well, it may take years before we see the 200-400mm and Chris should at least be collecting interest on his money. :)

This was the last announcement I read on the 200-400mm. If any one else has a more recent update we would like to see it;


"The Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Ext 1.4x Lens was originally expected to be (formally) announced on February 07, 2011 and scheduled for release later this year. This launch has also been delayed indefinitely. A release date for this lens will be announced when it is known."


The announcement was posted by Bryan on November 16th, 2011.

I'm a very Conservative Investor! :)

The only things that we know about that lens is that Canon did announce on February 07, 2011 that they were developing a new super-telephoto zoom 200-400mm f/4 +1.4X extender.

http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/P...ouncement.aspx

The latest that I've heard was that 1 year after Canons announcement, was that the lens was being field tested in Africa, and the date on that link was posted on Jan. 23, 2012.

http://blog.apertureacademy.com/2012...prototype.html

So.., at the rate that Canon moves, who knows how much longer? I would have to venture to guess by the end of the year with a return on your investment 9 months after that.:confused:

Rich

I also wanted to remind the OP to not forget the weight of the extenders.

The 1.4X weighs 8 oz (225g) and the 2X weighs 12 oz (325g) and that they also move the center of gravity of the lens further forward, which may make it more difficult to hand-hold.

I would also add that the 200-400mm will definitely be a handful.

Thank you all for your great comments.

@neuro: you are rigth. A TS-E is missing. But it is nothing I am missing for my use cases at the moment.

The cases HDNitehawk is referring to in his 300mm description comes pretty close to what I think I could benefit from an upgrade. You have to know that next year two sisters in law and my borther in law are going to marry. So anything what helps me there is welcome. Of course the 70-200 will do a good job here but knowing the locations already some fast glass with a 300mm focal length could help to get close enough (around 800 guests are expected for at least two of the three weddings). I also like to keep some distance to the subjects so they are not getting distracted.
And sports is also always a topic: basketball and football.

But Rich you are right: The 200-400 is also a lense which caught my attention. But with f/4 I am not sure it is fast enough for all scenarios I am looking for. And I really like fast glasses and the bokeh.
And the image quality? Will it be comparable to the primes? What does the rumors say Rich?
And maybe my wife grants me another 'wish' next year and by than the beauty might have hit the streets already :-)

So rethinking all your comments I still think the 300mm is the best next step for me.

I think a new 500mmf/4 is missing you seem to have the 300 covered, but have nothing on the long end. I have used the old 500 it is handholdable but better with a monopod which is fine for travelling. The new version is considerably lighter and has better IS. Rather than reaching for a teleconverter with a 300mm have the 500 ready to go.
We would all love a wild card that would let us consider a 400/2.8, life is short play the card with a 400 or 500.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiss

Of course the 70-200 will do a good job here but knowing the locations already some fast glass with a 300mm focal length could help to get close enough (around 800 guests are expected for at least two of the three weddings).

---

I would stick with the 70-200mm for that one. A 300mm F/2.8 at a wedding can become a bigger topic of conversation than the bride. Unless you are going to be hiding in the bushes.

They have camouflage patterns for wrapping lenses to take into the bush. Do they make tuxedo patterns for weddings and black tie affairs?

Well said HDNitehawk. My wife strongly agreed when I showed her your reply. I like JRWs idea though. :-)

Steve be assured that getting such a wild card from my wife was quite tough :-)

Back to topic: Is the 300 really drawing so much unwanted attention? That i would consider a negative aspect.
Why would you stick to the 70-200 for the wedding? Versatility? I was thinking of the 300 during the ceremony which is going to be more static and switch later on. Of course you could argue that in those cases you wouldn't need the 2.8 but bokeh and ability to use the glass also for sports would be my answer.

500 is no option because I would prefer the 400 2.8 over the 500 because it is faster and for both you would need a mono or tripod. And you are right: the long end is missing. But here we are at square one 300 vs. 400.

At the moment I am thinking get the 300 and maybe next year the 200-400 which would cover the long end perfectly. But that would mean again a lot of hard work to get my wife to accept that. But let's not worry about future trouble ;-)

The 300mm would make excellent pictures. Really I just thought it would be a bit long for a wedding, unless you are restricted on where you can set up.

If you are shooting a Celeb wedding from a helicopter it might be perfect.

I will Dry run with my 70-300 at 300 when I am at the planned location. But because I will probably setup at the back on a balcony I still believe 300 could be just fine. And as I said it is only a nice thing it helps me there. Main purpose is going to be sports/kids and I guess portraits.

Hi Swiss, my original comments regarding a 500mm or the 400mm were made mainly in relation to what is missing from your kit now. They were not made based on buying a wedding lens.
One of Australia's leading pro landscape photographers says that the lens that has given him the most creativity and the lens that sets his landscape work apart from the other pros is the 600mm. This lens has allowed him to get shots that were and are still impossible for most of his contemporaries and competition to get.
Purchasing a quality lens that develops and encourages your own creativity with your photography is in my opinion, priceless.
On your present kit I think the long end does need attention and the 500/4 is a very fast very high IQ lens and could be complimented with the 200-400 when it is released. Or buy the 400/2.8 now, then in the fiture sell the 70-300L and buy a 300/2.8.
Good luck with it.

Having had the new 300mm for a while now I must confess that I use it a fair bit with the 1.4x TC at sports events when I am further away, am wanting to reduce distracting backgrounds by reducing the FOV, or am trying to get some tighter portrait style shots which is an interesting niche to be able to provide. It works well enough with the TC on it that it is becoming 2 lenses in one for me.

Would I want to trade it in on a 400mm? Definitely not!! The native 300mm focal length is too often used. Would be nice to have both but then I'd want a pack mule to help carry everything around too!

The only other interesting thought that has occurred to me is to get another 1.4x TC to allow having one on each of the 300mm and the 70-200 when occasion calls for it. The 200-400 would be nice, but not available to purchase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiss

3. 300 2.8 II, Would be much faster than my 70-300 and the IQ is better. What I like about it: It is handholdable. But for what would I use this prime? Sports no doubt and Wildlife. For both you can't have enough focal length in my opinion. So wouldn't be the 400er the better choice?
4. 400 2.8 II, great lense, Perfect for sports and wildlife. You could use it with a 1.4 or without. But the weight? Is this lense going to be so inconvinient that I would avoid using it? You have to take into account that I am not a pro and I love traveling without a tripod.

I look forward to your thoughts!

---

Here's a few more thoughts. First off all, the 300mm is pretty long for your friends wedding and it will most definitely draw unwanted attention, plus it's white! It's not like it's a big black canon as in Nikon! I do agree that you can buy a lens coat and bow tie for it though! I can see using it up in a balcony for a few select shots, or isolation candids during the ceremony when everyone is seated, otherwise it's way too long. You wan't be able to shoot with it too easily once everyone starts walking around, as you will be having to back up to much and people will be walking in front of you and ruining the shots, and forget about group shots.

Since, you mentioned we're back to the 300mm vs 400mm scenario.

As I mentioned in another thread, for sports I would recommend the 300mm on the 7D (1.6X), the 400mm on the MKIV (1.3X), and the 400 or 500mm on FF (35mm).

If you want to use the 300mm on FF, then you will need to add the 1.4X extender. Another option is getting a 300mm f/2.8 and a 7D for sports and/or wildlife.

Unless you really need the 400mm, I would go with the more user friendly and hand-holdable 300mm f/2.8L IS, and the version II's seem to hold the extenders very nicely. If you're thinking about a 300mm "version I" then there may be a few for sale shortly, as people upgrade to the 1DX as they will require longer glass for that body.

Rich

I think that will work - I haven't been at too many weddings where the razor sharp IQ of an L was truly appreciated by the bride :) A little soft worked out and definitely the groom usually looked a lot better through a pin hole.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiss

I will Dry run with my 70-300 at 300 when I am at the planned location. But because I will probably setup at the back on a balcony I still believe 300 could be just fine. And as I said it is only a nice thing it helps me there. Main purpose is going to be sports/kids and I guess portraits.

---

@jrw: I like how you see the 300vs400 question

@Busted: I haven't seen things from that angle. A valid point I guess :-)

@Rich: You are raising a question in my mind which I thought I had answered myself some time ago. Is a 7Ds image as good as (or even better) than cropping a 1D X image to the same frame? I thought no is the answer.
(Sorry for any confusion if my. Nglish is incorrect but I guess you get the point)

Your English is fantastic!

I don't know, but the general consensus around here is that a 1.4X extender or the 7D (1.6X) is usually better than cropping.

If you think about it, a 1.4X extender is $500 and for about another $1000, you can get a 7D with a longer crop factor and still retain f/2.8 and without losing AF speed, or an f-stop.

I would say that a crop camera like the 7D, would provide 1.6 crop, uses the best center part of the lens and retains f/2.8. The extender puts more pixels on your subject which is always a good thing, however you loose one f-stop with the 1.4X and you decrease AF speed by 50% according to Canon.

I do feel that the 7D has the AF and metering capability, as well as the frame rate, so it certainly makes for a great choice for sports and wildlife:


7D $1600 + 300mm f/2.8L IS IS II $6800 = $8400 (480mm @ f/2.8)

7D $1600 + 300mm f/2.8L IS IS II $6800 + 1.4X $500 = $8900 (672mm @f/4 lose some AF speed and IQ)

7D $1600 + 400mm f/2.8L IS II $11,500 = $13,100 (640mm @ f/2.8)



MKIV $5000 + 300mm f/2.8L IS II $6800 = $11,800 (390mm @ f/2.8)

MKIV $5000 + 300mm f/2.8L IS II $6800 + 1.4X $500 = $12,300 (546mm@ f/4 lose some AF speed and IQ)

MKIV $5000 + 400mm f/2.8L IS II $11,500 = $16,500 (520mm @ f/2.8)



1DX $6800 + 300mm f/2.8L IS II $6800 + 1.4X $500 = $14,100 (420mm @ f/4 lose some AF speed and IQ)

1DX $6800 + 400mm f/2.8L IS II $11,500 = $18,300 (400mm @f/2.8)

1DX $6800 + 400mm f/2.8L IS II $11,500 + 1.4X $500 = $18,800 (520mm @f/4 lose some AF speed and IQ )


Rich


PS. "not responsible for errors" :)

With regards to the 7D, 1D4, FF, and cropping, there was a lengthy thread earlier with lots of sample images as it relates to capturing bird images. The pixel density of the 7D sensor is capable of capturing a lot of detail. Images require more work to clean up in post processing though.

7D AF is up to sports action. Used to use a pair of them at events. 5D3 AF system is superior as will the 1Dx be once you receive yours. Would suggest renting one before buying and trying it with existing lenses in a range of lighting situations and with different distances to subjects to see how you like the results of cropping, TCs, cropped sensors and various ISO settings in your final images. The test shots in Bryan's 7D review compared to the 5D2 would give you some idea of what to expect for image quality.