A fool's consideration..

[Rocco]

<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

[HDNitehawk]

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

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[Fast Glass]

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.

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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

[Jon Ruyle]

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

[HDNitehawk]

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

[thekingb]

<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]

[neuroanatomist]

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?

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.