A $1,200 to $1,600 Question

[Richard Lane]

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

[Richard Lane]

Post was duplicated!

[JJphoto]

Very nice surfing shots Rich, the second one is my favorite.

[Richard Lane]

Thanks JJ,


That's my Favorite one too! I think that it may be going up in the window at the Surf Shop!


Look what a difference the weather has on the photos, as they were all taken at the same beach with the same equipment, and similar settings!


Rich

[Kayaker72]

[So, what will you be shooting?





Rich
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Rich,


Great pictures. The second is also my favorite but I really like the second to last as well (someone trying to control chaos). Great lighting and I also like your angle/vantage point.


As for your question, I tend to shoot anything that interests me. I take 2,000-2,500 pictures a year with my point and shoots, lots of family functions, trips and the pets. My wife and I don't have kids yet, but I do have seven nieces and nephews. But, the 7D has done exactly what I wanted it too, opened up photography as a hobby. And I am still learning what I will shoot fora hobby. I suspect, again, everything that interests me.Since July, I've already taken 1,200 photos with my 7D ranging from the surfers and humming birds I posted to bugs, flowers and a lot of our pets. Also, a lot of those were just learning or testing different lenses.


So, I am going to need a couple of good flexible lenses and the question is which one first as I am pretty sure in a year or two I'll have both.I can makearguments for having something that is best in the 70-200/300 mm range that can be extended or having the 100-400L, which covers the entire range (and can be extended out to 560/800 mm). Right now I am planning to wait until mid-October, see if Canon releases any more lenses for Photokina and wait for the reviews for the 70-300L and the newextenders. Granted, I am not sure when we'll start seeing the reviews. I also have a friend with one of the Sigma's that goes out to 500 mm. We're hiking soon with our cameras, so hopefully, I'll get a chance to play with that lens (although, I think I'll stay with Canon when I buy).


Mike. I guess the way I am looking at the 70-300L is in comparison to the 70-200 f/4 L IS with a 1.4 extender. They would cover a similar range with the same aperature at 70 mm and 280/300 mm. The primary questions I have are what is the aperature of the 70-300L between 135-200 mmand a comparison of the image quality between the two lenses. Then it is just a size/weight issue as cost is about equal and the fact that the 70-300L gives you the package in a single lens.


I'll start to see if I can put the money together for the 70-200 f2.8 L II IS. It does seem to be a great lens.


Thanks again for everyones input.


Brant

[scalesusa]

You only have to answer to yourself. many of the people who post here are quite fanatical about throwing lots of money at a tiny improvement. I hate to admit it, but that fits me as well.


However, in the final analysis, a fuzzy photo of the right subject or composition is worth a thousand technically perfect images but a subject of little value.


Remember the amateur photographer who was in the right place at the right time when Mt St helens exploded. He got spectacular images, but the technical quality was no better than a person can get with a digital point and shoot camera today.


Still, that was a money shot, one that no one else got.


So, don't worry about what others may say about your equipment, if it works for you, its right for you.


That said, a big upgrade would be for you to go to the 70-300mm IS at about $600. I think you will like it compared to the lens you have now.

[Richard Lane]

Rich,


Great pictures. The second is also my favorite but I really like the second to last as well (someone trying to control chaos). Great lighting and I also like your angle/vantage point.


As for your question, I tend to shoot anything that interests me. I take 2,000-2,500 pictures a year with my point and shoots, lots of family functions, trips and the pets. My wife and I don't have kids yet, but I do have seven nieces and nephews. But, the 7D has done exactly what I wanted it too, opened up photography as a hobby. And I am still learning what I will shoot fora hobby. I suspect, again, everything that interests me.Since July, I've already taken 1,200 photos with my 7D ranging from the surfers and humming birds I posted to bugs, flowers and a lot of our pets. Also, a lot of those were just learning or testing different lenses.


So, I am going to need a couple of good flexible lenses and the question is which one first as I am pretty sure in a year or two I'll have both.I can makearguments for having something that is best in the 70-200/300 mm range that can be extended or having the 100-400L, which covers the entire range (and can be extended out to 560/800 mm). Right now I am planning to wait until mid-October, see if Canon releases any more lenses for Photokina and wait for the reviews for the 70-300L and the newextenders. Granted, I am not sure when we'll start seeing the reviews. I also have a friend with one of the Sigma's that goes out to 500 mm. We're hiking soon with our cameras, so hopefully, I'll get a chance to play with that lens (although, I think I'll stay with Canon when I buy).


I'll start to see if I can put the money together for the 70-200 f2.8 L II IS. It does seem to be a great lens.


Thanks again for everyones input.


Brant

Thanks Brant, it's greatly appreciated!


The 7D is an awesome camera and Canon's Lenses are really improving. Just as a general rule of thumb, the greater zoom ability of the lens the harder it is for it to be sharp throughout it's range. That's why "Primes Rock." But primes can be expensive and impractical when traveling, especially if you would like to cover all the ranges. The super zooms are like a swiss army knife (they're convenient), when you need a fork you're not going to go for the fork in the swiss army knife, but if you don't have a fork and you're tring to eat from a can of beans, then it's the best dam fork around that you've ever used. By the way, I do think that the mid range zooms are very good; as I own the EF-S 10-22mm, and EF 24-70mm f/2.8L, but once you get beyond 2-3x zoom, the execution becomes increasingly difficult. Note, that the 70-200mm is approximately a 3x zoom.


But, Canon really hit it out of the park with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ($2300). It's sharper than the 70-200mm f/4L IS at all focal points. If you throw on a 1.4X extender ($300-$500: in my house we call this a combination, Birthday &amp; Christmas present) to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, then you'll have a 98mm- 280mm f/4L IS II. The downside of the 2.8L II is its price and weight, especially if you're going to lug it around in a back pack. If we were having this conversation last year, I would have said to get the 70-200mm f/4L, but to me the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a game changer.


You said you would like to be able to get into the 400mm range. When you state, that in a year or two, you'll have both lenses, I certainly wouldn't recommend the new 70-300mm and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ($1600) because there is too much overlap and not enough separation in low light larger aperture or speed. Worry about your next lens in a year or two, by then maybe Canon will hit another one out of the park.


Personally, I would rather own 1 great lens then 2 good lenses. I think it's wise to wait for the new 70-300mmL f/4-5.6L ($1500) and see the reviews and Bryans analysis. If it's sharp then you should consider it. Just be aware that it won't be great in low light, early morning dusk lighting conditions (in the woods) and it will be slow for action according to it's listed aperture range. But if you're in the woods and need a swiss army knife then it will be the best lens around. Keep in mind, I don't want to push you to spend more money, but I'm just trying to suggest other ways to put together your kit; such as image sharpness, lowlight capability, and speed.


I really hope that Canon comes out with a 200-400mm f/4L IS, similar to the Nikon Lens.





Rich

[Kayaker72]

That said, a big upgrade would be for you to go to the 70-300mm IS at about $600. I think you will like it compared to the lens you have now.

Thanks scalesusa. I appreciate the bang for the buck stepped upgrade suggestion.And it isan interesting thought and it would allow me to take the same money and maybe get the 85 f1.8 and the 100 f/2.8 macrofor about the same money as the 70-300L, which would be a pretty good kit for awhile. I had been thinking of doing something like that but with the 70-200 L (non-IS). After reading your post, I evaluated the 70-300 mm IS again. I think why I stopped looking at it before were the ISO 12233 charts with the Canon 40D (I figure the most direct comparison to my 7D). Honestly, they are awful. But it looks much better on the 1Ds body. So I then checked out other reviews on 1.6x crop bodies and those all were very favorable. So, it is back in the mix([]). I am a bit of a data nut so I actually enjoy evaluating all these lenses. Really, I won't be making a decision until I see a review or at least the ISO-12233 charts for the 70-300L.


Thanks again,


Brant

[neuroanatomist]

I had been thinking of doing something like that but with the 70-200 L (non-IS). After reading your post, I evaluated the 70-300 mm IS again.

I suspect the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS would be a better choice. If you look at the ISO 12233 crops from either the 1DsIII or the 40D, the 70-300mm non-L is not bad at 200mm, but loses a lot of IQ by 300mm - as Bryan states, that's the worst part of the range. I think you'll find the optical quality of the 70-300mm non-L to be better than your 75-300mm, but noticeably worse than your EF-S 15-85mm lens. Also, the build quality of the 70-300mm non-L is not great. Better than the 75-300mm, but no true USM (it's a micromotor, which is slower then ring USM and doesn't offer full time manual), and the front element rotates with focusing.


One other option to consider in your budget - the 70-200mm f/4L IS plus either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 100mm f/2.8 non-L macro. You'd be giving up 100mm on the long end of the telezoom, but getting a constant aperture lens.

[Kayaker72]

If we were having this conversation last year, I would have said to get the 70-200mm f/4L, but to me the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a game changer.


You said you would like to be able to get into the 400mm range. When you state, that in a year or two, you'll have both lenses, I certainly wouldn't recommend the new 70-300mm and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ($1600) because there is too much overlap and not enough separation in low light larger aperture or speed. Worry about your next lens in a year or two, by then maybe Canon will hit another one out of the park.


Personally, I would rather own 1 great lens then 2 good lenses. I think it's wise to wait for the new 70-300mmL f/4-5.6L ($1500) and see the reviews and Bryans analysis. If it's sharp then you should consider it. Just be aware that it won't be great in low light, early morning dusk lighting conditions (in the woods) and it will be slow for action according to it's listed aperture range. But if you're in the woods and need a swiss army knife then it will be the best lens around. Keep in mind, I don't want to push you to spend more money, but I'm just trying to suggest other ways to put together your kit; such as image sharpness, lowlight capability, and speed.

Rich,


I've looked at the 70-200 mm f/2.8 II. The charts are amazing. Everyone that has one seems to love it. The cost is a bit of an issue for me, but the thing that has me are the size and weight. It is another lens (along with the 100-400L) that I need to get my hands on at a photo shop (the lastfew I've been too didn't have either). I am very tempted by the 70-200 f/4, as I can see that and the 100-400L beinga good combination.As for the70-300L,I am mostly waiting to see if the IQ is up there with the 70-200 mm f/2.8 II.If I do pick it, maybe I live with the "compromise" of great IQ and 300 mm for a couple of years and save up for a big prime? []


But, your point is well taken, I need tobe careful or I'll only have slow lenses.I am eventhinking aboutmy EFS 15-85. It takes very nice sharp pictures and I love the range. But it is slow.


Thanks for the feedback.


Brant