L-Fever: What next?

[Richard Lane]

I'm a very Conservative Investor!

The only things that we know about that lens is that Canon did announce on February 07, 2011 that they were developing a new super-telephoto zoom 200-400mm f/4 +1.4X extender.

http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/P...ouncement.aspx

The latest that I've heard was that 1 year after Canons announcement, was that the lens was being field tested in Africa, and the date on that link was posted on Jan. 23, 2012.

http://blog.apertureacademy.com/2012...prototype.html

So.., at the rate that Canon moves, who knows how much longer? I would have to venture to guess by the end of the year with a return on your investment 9 months after that.

Rich

[Richard Lane]

I also wanted to remind the OP to not forget the weight of the extenders.

The 1.4X weighs 8 oz (225g) and the 2X weighs 12 oz (325g) and that they also move the center of gravity of the lens further forward, which may make it more difficult to hand-hold.

I would also add that the 200-400mm will definitely be a handful.

[Swiss]

Thank you all for your great comments.

@neuro: you are rigth. A TS-E is missing. But it is nothing I am missing for my use cases at the moment.

The cases HDNitehawk is referring to in his 300mm description comes pretty close to what I think I could benefit from an upgrade. You have to know that next year two sisters in law and my borther in law are going to marry. So anything what helps me there is welcome. Of course the 70-200 will do a good job here but knowing the locations already some fast glass with a 300mm focal length could help to get close enough (around 800 guests are expected for at least two of the three weddings). I also like to keep some distance to the subjects so they are not getting distracted.
And sports is also always a topic: basketball and football.

But Rich you are right: The 200-400 is also a lense which caught my attention. But with f/4 I am not sure it is fast enough for all scenarios I am looking for. And I really like fast glasses and the bokeh.
And the image quality? Will it be comparable to the primes? What does the rumors say Rich?
And maybe my wife grants me another 'wish' next year and by than the beauty might have hit the streets already :-)

So rethinking all your comments I still think the 300mm is the best next step for me.

[Steve U]

I think a new 500mmf/4 is missing you seem to have the 300 covered, but have nothing on the long end. I have used the old 500 it is handholdable but better with a monopod which is fine for travelling. The new version is considerably lighter and has better IS. Rather than reaching for a teleconverter with a 300mm have the 500 ready to go.
We would all love a wild card that would let us consider a 400/2.8, life is short play the card with a 400 or 500.

[HDNitehawk]

Of course the 70-200 will do a good job here but knowing the locations already some fast glass with a 300mm focal length could help to get close enough (around 800 guests are expected for at least two of the three weddings).

I would stick with the 70-200mm for that one. A 300mm F/2.8 at a wedding can become a bigger topic of conversation than the bride. Unless you are going to be hiding in the bushes.

[jrw]

They have camouflage patterns for wrapping lenses to take into the bush. Do they make tuxedo patterns for weddings and black tie affairs?

[Swiss]

Well said HDNitehawk. My wife strongly agreed when I showed her your reply. I like JRWs idea though. :-)

Steve be assured that getting such a wild card from my wife was quite tough :-)

Back to topic: Is the 300 really drawing so much unwanted attention? That i would consider a negative aspect.
Why would you stick to the 70-200 for the wedding? Versatility? I was thinking of the 300 during the ceremony which is going to be more static and switch later on. Of course you could argue that in those cases you wouldn't need the 2.8 but bokeh and ability to use the glass also for sports would be my answer.

500 is no option because I would prefer the 400 2.8 over the 500 because it is faster and for both you would need a mono or tripod. And you are right: the long end is missing. But here we are at square one 300 vs. 400.

At the moment I am thinking get the 300 and maybe next year the 200-400 which would cover the long end perfectly. But that would mean again a lot of hard work to get my wife to accept that. But let's not worry about future trouble ;-)

[HDNitehawk]

The 300mm would make excellent pictures. Really I just thought it would be a bit long for a wedding, unless you are restricted on where you can set up.

If you are shooting a Celeb wedding from a helicopter it might be perfect.

[Swiss]

I will Dry run with my 70-300 at 300 when I am at the planned location. But because I will probably setup at the back on a balcony I still believe 300 could be just fine. And as I said it is only a nice thing it helps me there. Main purpose is going to be sports/kids and I guess portraits.

[Steve U]

Hi Swiss, my original comments regarding a 500mm or the 400mm were made mainly in relation to what is missing from your kit now. They were not made based on buying a wedding lens.
One of Australia's leading pro landscape photographers says that the lens that has given him the most creativity and the lens that sets his landscape work apart from the other pros is the 600mm. This lens has allowed him to get shots that were and are still impossible for most of his contemporaries and competition to get.
Purchasing a quality lens that develops and encourages your own creativity with your photography is in my opinion, priceless.
On your present kit I think the long end does need attention and the 500/4 is a very fast very high IQ lens and could be complimented with the 200-400 when it is released. Or buy the 400/2.8 now, then in the fiture sell the 70-300L and buy a 300/2.8.
Good luck with it.