Indecision On Lens Choices

[zacotton]

And this is why I love this place. You guys are awesome.


@Neuro;


Hrm,apparentlyI didn't look hard enough as I was told that you could slap a 1.4x TC on the 75-300. But regardless, that would just make image quality horrendous. You bring up a valid option to cropping photos to get 'more zoom' as opposed to getting a longer focal length lens. I never really even thought about it, and would certainly make things a bit easier.


I suppose I may attempt to try a 1.4x on the 70-200 f/4 that I have now to see if the extra 80mm gives me that much more, or if I'd be better off just cropping what I've got and saving myself a couple hundred bucks.


Let me ask another question then; would upgrading to the f/2.8 be worth it? I know that it would allow twice as much light in, and I believe it also helps for faster focus times. Please do correct me if I'm mistaken. Again, typically I'm doing outdoor shots where there's much more than enough lighting. But on the same coin it would be nice to have just to be versatile if I ever did want to do any indoor shooting. But at the same time, could I not add a flash and still get relatively similar results? Ultimately it's something I'll have to decide on myself, as you guys obviously can't know exactly where I plan to be, what I plan to shoot, etc to give me a definite answer. I just like knowing everything there is to possibly know about things. ;P

[neuroanatomist]

<div>

I've thought about possibly even upgrading to the f/4 IS lens, but it seems like a senseless use of money as I rarely seem to have any problems handheld. And I've almost always got my tripod with me, so if need be I can just throw my body onto that.

Iif you don't need the IS, then there's not a great reason to upgrade. The f/4L IS is a bit sharper than the non-IS version (but the latter is plenty sharp!!), and has weather-sealing (irrelevant with a non-sealed body).
</div>
<div></div>

I was told that you could slap a 1.4x TC on the 75-300

You can slap one of several 3rd party teleconverters on almost any lens - many, like the Kenko models, report their existence so you get the proper focal length in the EXIF data, but don't report aperture properly, so it's wrong in EXIF and the camera doesn't 'know' it's at f/8, meaning it tries to AF. Canon teleconverters only work on select lenses, namely L-series primes of 135mm and longer, and L-series zooms starting at 70mm or longer (and as provided, you lose AF with some of those lenses on non-1-series bodies, when the max aperture goes over f/5.6). The Canon TCs will also work with select other lenses, like the TS-E series.

I suppose I may attempt to try a 1.4x on the 70-200 f/4 that I have now to see if the extra 80mm gives me that much more, or if I'd be better off just cropping what I've got and saving myself a couple hundred bucks.

You're probably better off cropping, at least for now. A 98-280mm f/5.6 lens would probably not be too great. I do use a 1.4x II Extender on occasion, but that's with anEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM, meaning a 98-280mm f/4 lens with very little loss of IQ. It's good, but even so I only use that combination when shooting in the rain, since theEF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]LIS USM is not weather-sealed.

Let me ask another question then; would upgrading to the f/2.8 be worth it? I know that it would allow twice as much light in, and I believe it also helps for faster focus times. Please do correct me if I'm mistaken. Again, typically I'm doing outdoor shots where there's much more than enough lighting. But on the same coin it would be nice to have just to be versatile if I ever did want to do any indoor shooting. But at the same time, could I not add a flash and still get relatively similar results?

The f/2.8 lets in twice as much light, which is useful when shooting moving subjects in ambient light. Focus is not faster because of wider aperture, but it is more accurate since many Canon bodies (including the T1i) have a high-precision center AF point that works with f/2.8 or faster lenses. Focus may also be possible in dimmer light with f/2.8. (As a side note, a Canon TC actually causes AF to be slower, by design.) The f/4 versions of the 70-200mm zooms are significantly smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 versions - if you're outdoors in good light, f/4 is just fine. The f/2.8 comes in handy when shooting at dawn and dusk, though. You could add a flash, sure - but whether or not the results would be 'similar' would depend on whether you wanted to use ambient light for artistic purposes, and also whether your subject was close enough for the flash to be effective. Personally, I find the 70-200mm range too long for most indoor shooting anyway (around the house, in any case) on a crop body - it would work for indoor events, but then as Jan said, even f/2.8 is likely not fast enough for something like indoor sports.


As you state, it's a personal decision. For myself, I went with theEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM to have the flexibility, for outdoor portraits where f/2.8 provides more OOF blur than f/4, and for the weather-sealed option with a TC as I mentioned above. But, it's a big, heavy, and very expensive lens.



<div>

Be thankful that you haven't experienced the L-disease yet. Once you go L, you don't want anything else and it gets very and I mean very expensive ...Haha I got my disease pretty much under control

</div>
<div>


I don't - it seems I've completely succumbed. UPS tracking tells me that my new EF 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: red;"]L II USM ordered from B&amp;H is 'out for delivery' - so it should be in my hands in a couple of hours. []
</div>