Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72


But I think I would like the extra reach of the 100-400L. But, ultimately, I am just building my "kit" and, really, Ionly have 1, maybe 2 good lenses (EFS 15-85, and the 50 mm f/1.8) in addition to the 75-300 III USM, which I am deciding is an ok lens. I can see a portrait, macro, 70-200/70-300 and something that reaches to 400 mm or beyond in my future. The question is what next....and it will probably be the 70-300L or the 100-400L. But this is why I wanted my 75-300 to be good...then I could focus on other areas.


Hope the BBQ was good.....


Brant






Hey Brant,


The BBQ was great thanks! Sorry, about the delay. I took over 2000 surfing photos during the Hurricane, but now I reached my monthly limit on Flickr so I can't upload anymore Hurricane photos until next month, or get the Pro Version.


Anyway, I wanted to upload those photos before I screwed it up, because I'm new to flickr, and then I thought I would comment about your decision.


I would rather cover the 70-300mm and the 100-400mm range with 2 separate lenses. I just think that it's asking the Lens to do too much, and therefore it ends up not being great at anything.


I would rather see you get one great lens now and then another great lens next time whenever that may be.


I do think that the 100-400mm is very good from 200-400mm, but it's not as good from 100-200mm. In addition it's not a very fast lens with it's variable aperture, so it has it's limits regarding fast action sports, especially if the light is limited. But the more important decision is what your needs are and then we can help you pick out a great lens.


I like your idea of the 70-200mm lens, if you could afford the f/2.8L IS II version, that would be my first choice for now. It's very sharp and it has a fast AF, and it can handle the 1.4X extender pretty well. If your needs are more geared towards the 200-400mm range then I think that the 100-400mm is very good for the money.


So, what will you be shooting?





Rich