Migrating from EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to ?
I had thought this was a purchase I was going to make a while ago, but it did not happen. Hope to make it happen this year. As you can see, I'm planning on leaving my EF 70-300mm to one of the following two choices:
1) EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM + 1.4 extender
or
2) EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
If there is a third option, please let me know.
Thanks in advance,
Eric
PS: I'm currently using an EOS 40D. My primary interest is wildlife photography. I'd originally thought of option 2, but I think option 1 might be better as I'll be getting a much faster lens which in my mind will offset the lack of reach I'd get as opposed to option 2 (my original choice). Any input appreciated!
Re: Migrating from EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to ?
Do you consider your current lens fast enough for the shooting you do? If so, my choice would be for the 100-400L.
Re: Migrating from EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to ?
I'm using anXSi with an old (circa 1997) EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USMII to take pictures of birds, squirrels and deer.Eventually I'd like to get an EF70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM with1.4x & 2.0X extenders. I thought about the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM but believe the EF70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM with1.4X & 2.0X extenders would be much more versatile. I've been more disappointed with how slow my old lens is than it's reach. I'd use the lens without extenders in low light, when the deer tend to be most active. I've got lots of pics of clear backgrounds and blurry deer. Mostly I though, it would be easier to justify the purchase of a renowned portrait lens to the Wife.
I think the EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM & 1.4X combo would be a more cost effective option but can't sell the wife on something so specialized.
Re: Migrating from EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to ?
You may also want to consider the EF 70-200mm f/4 L (non IS).
This is truly 'the' sleeper lens in the Canon Luxury lineup. You will save a ton of money, (and weight) and the quality of the photos are incredible. It also makes an excellent portrait lens. Perfect for a trip to the Zoo as well. This would be a really big step up from your current zoom.
But I see you are primary to wildlife. Distance is just such huge factor and your ability to pull images is pretty much limited by your budget, i.e. how much are you willing to spend to get the farthest reaching lens, OR or course your ability to be very patient and extremely quiet. The EF 100-400mm will give you a lot of flexibility, especially with composition. I think that the EF 300mm f/4.0 L would be great too. Primes rule.
All lenses mentioned are first class, you can't lose. Really think about what you are going to be shooting, and how much flexibility you really do need.
-- Or you could just be done with it and buy one of those Phoenix 2500mm lens for 250 bucks! (just kidding) --
Good times.
Re: Migrating from EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to ?
For wildlife, it's the 100-400, hands down. The only other option to consider in this price range is the 400mm f/5.6 prime, which has higher image quality but lacks zoom and IS. Everything else is shorter or lower quality. Only consider the shorter lenses (e.g. 70-200) if you're certain you'll use those focal lengths often enough without the TC. If the long end is more important, then that's where you have to focus.
Re: Migrating from EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neustar_eric
My primary interest is wildlife photography.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
100-400. If you can afford to, keep your 70-300IS--you will want it for the smaller size and lighter weight...think travel lens.
Re: Migrating from EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarhead5811
Eventually I'd like to get an EF70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM with1.4x & 2.0X extenders. I thought about the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM but believe the EF70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM with1.4X & 2.0X extenders would be much more versatile.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Not to derail the thread but this is a bad plan. The 70-200/2.8IS with the 1.4x provides iffy performance, with the 2x its completely unusable. Check out Bryan's head to heads between the 100-400 and 70-200 w/ TC's...perhaps they will make you change your mind if I hadn't already.
Re: Migrating from EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVers
Not to derail the thread but this is a bad plan. The 70-200/2.8IS with the 1.4x provides iffy performance, with the 2x its completely unusable. Check out Bryan's head to heads between the 100-400 and 70-200 w/ TC's...perhaps they will make you change your mind if I hadn't already.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Define completely unusable? I have the 2x TC and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and have used it several times with decent success. There is noticeable distortion and some added softness when viewed at 100%, however, that combination is far from completely unusable. After cropping and resizing to around 1200px I can no longer see the distortion or softness.
Optically, I find the 70-200mm superior to the 100-400mm. I also find the 100-400 horrible to use (I very much dislike the push/pull).
Either way, at 400mm and f/5.6, it had better be a bright sunny day or you had better be shooting a still subject.
The 70-200mm f/2.8 is far more versatile and it's MUCH faster. It is absolutely one of my favorite lenses and is also highly regarded and recommended by Bryan. I'd recommend going with it.
Re: Migrating from EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispy43
Define completely unusable?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Completely Unusable: The lenses AF is compromised and is dreadfully slow. The lenses IQ is severely affected--color contrast, sharpness are compromised. The lens is a very poor performer with a 2x TC, perhaps you have lower standards, but it is what it is. The 70-200/2.8IS is faster on its own, but with a TC does not perform anywhere near the 100-400. As for versatility, it all depends on what you shoot. If you indoor shoot sports, you have a point...if you're talking wildlife you don't. You are attempting to compare two entirely different lenses. Generally speaking the 70-200/2.8IS is more versatile than the 500/4, does that mean its a better lens for wildlife photography? TBH it doesn't sound like you have ever shot with the 100-400, if you had you wouldn't be making the comments you are about it...specifically when comparing it to a 70-200 with a 2x.
As for shooting only still subjects...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2143/...81851eb8_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2259/...8407dc66_b.jpg
or on bright sunny days...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3340/...8c43d26d_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3106/...fd6a5762_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3438/...b9cdbe26_b.jpg
Also, if you could, can you post examples of usable images taken with the 70-200/2.8IS and 2x TC combo...you've got me curious.
Re: Migrating from EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVers
[url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=9&Sample=0& FLIComp=6&APIComp=2&LensComp=103&Camer aComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=0]Completely Unusable[/url]: The lenses AF is compromised and is dreadfully slow. The lenses IQ is severely affected--color contrast, sharpness are compromised. The lens is a very poor performer with a 2x TC, perhaps you have lower standards, but it is what it is. The 70-200/2.8IS is faster on its own, but with a TC does not perform anywhere near the 100-400. As for versatility, it all depends on what you shoot. If you indoor shoot sports, you have a point...if you're talking wildlife you don't. You are attempting to compare two entirely different lenses. The 70-200/2.8IS is more versatile than the 500/4, does that mean its a better lens for wildlife photography? TBH it doesn't sound like you have ever shot with the 100-400, if you had you wouldn't be making the comments you are about it...specifically when comparing it to a 70-200 with a 2x.
Also, if you could, can you post examples of usable images taken with the 20-200/2.8IS and 2x TC combo...you've got me curious.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Perhaps you misread what I said. The one image you posted of a moving subject was on a bright sunny day. All the other images were taken of subjects that weren't moving at the time. You validated what I said.
I assume you mean the 70-200 and not "20-200". I am not a wildlife photographer (I used the 100-400 for sports on an overcast day, the horror!) but I will head up a local mountain with my 70-200 w/ 2x TC and see if I can shoot some birds so we can compare apples to apples. Remember, I did acknowledge the distortion as well as the softness. Maybe my standards are lower. I guess we shall see.
Throwing the example of the 500mm f/4 in there is moot. 1) it is a prime 2) it is a longer focal length 3) I was comparing 400mm f/5.6 to 400mm f/5.6.
