Canon (EF 100-400 L + EF 24-105) or EF 28-300

[Chris White]

Thanks John, I am familiar with Plasti-Dip. I should have my RS-4 by the weekend.


Chris

[peety3]

From Mike's perspective, which is probably true for most people, carrying two cameras is not a likely possibility.

It's entirely possible that the second camera stays in the bag, merely standing by as a spare. Our two 7D bodies are too new to have presented with any problems, but I can only assume that it WILL happen someday.

Ialso hate the zoom tension clutch, as it requires two hands to adjust, but walks loose all the time.

I use my 100-400mm a lot, and I think I've adjusted the tension ring all of two or three times.

I've rented it twice, and probably adjusted it at least two to three times per day it got used.

I'm going straight to the 300/4IS. After that is the 85L, and the 400/5.6. "But peety, why buy the 300/4 and the 400/5.6 when you could just buy the 100-400?" She "gets" the 300/4 (she needs IS more than I do - I can manage shutter speed better than her), and I "get" the 400.

IMO, the 100-400mm is the best choice for shooting wildlife while mobile. I had (and sold) the 300mm f/4L IS - as a prime, it lacked the flexibility I needed for wildlife and birds. If all I shot was birds primarily at a backyard feeder setup (I don't have one), the 300 f/4L would be a good choice. Likewise, it would be fine if, like you, I was carrying a second camera with my 70-200mm. Neither is the case. I'm not a big fan of the 400mm f/5.6 - that's a really long focal length to shoot without IS, no matter how steady your hands are. There's a reason it's got a reputation as a bird-in-flight lens, since you need those wing-stopping shutter speeds to handhold that lens in any case. The 100-400mm is the most affordable way to get IS in a 400mm lens without resorting to a teleconverter (and the IQ at 400mm is better than the 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x Extender).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

You're probably right about the 100-400's usefulness, especially for those not aspiring to pro careers and such. I see myself continuing to pour large amounts of money into my photography hobby/addiction, with the hopes of it becoming a side or even main career at some point. As such, the 100-400 isn't for me - I see the 300/4 and 400/5.6 as interim steps but both would likely stay in my inventory for a long time.


That said, I do still stand by my original comment: decide what lens to buy next, not what lenses. Buy, learn, evaluate what's lacking, decide, buy, learn, repeat. I started with a 24-105; three weeks later I rented the 16-35, 70-200/2.8IS, and 100-400; it was too much to juggle. I may have my next twenty lenses planned out on my wishlist (dreamlist?), but the only thing I'm focused on is when the Mrs. will allow me to buy the next one (EF-S 10-22).

[JJphoto]

I would go with 100-400mm(or400mm5.6 prime)+7d(or xxD) instead of 100-400mm+24-105mm+350D


for wildlife and bird, better AF and burst rate mean photos probably missed with slower body.


400mm 5.6 prime with 350D doesn't make a lot of sense since this lens is good for BIF IMO, however, I found out that at 1 hour before sunset(of cause in sunny day) you can easily get speed of 1/1250-1/2500 with ISO 200-400 on my 7D(at f5.6) , in this situation, IS is not a big deal when handholding you camera.


400mm 5.6 prime is also cheaper,lighter,smaller and better IQ than 100-400mm.


just my 2 cents

[Miketown]

Ok, I'm going for the 100-400 + 24-105 and put the a 7D or xxD and the 17-55 F/2.8 on my Christmas list.


Thanks guys for the great support


Mike

[neuroanatomist]

Ok, I'm going for the 100-400 + 24-105 and put the a 7D or xxD and the 17-55 F/2.8 on my Christmas list.

Just a side note here - a lot of people would say having both the 24-105mm f/4L IS the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is overkill, since they are both general purpose zooms. I have both, and I'd definitely recommend picking just one then getting other lenses (fast primes, etc.) before getting a second general purpose zoom. I got the 17-55mm f/2.8 first, and I still use it a lot. My primary reason for getting the 24-105mm was weather-sealing - I wanted to shoot in the rain. Until you have a weather-sealed body (the 7D is, but Rebels are not, and the xxD line has minimal sealing), weather-sealing on a lens doesn't mean anything. When I'm going somewhere, I never take them both. They are different lenses with different specifications, but they are intended for the same purpose - general use shooting. I think you'd be far better off picking one of them, and then looking at other different lenses next (the 85mm f/1.8 comes to mind as an excellent portrait lens, for example.)


So, look over your shots from the 18-55mm kit lens - do you use 18-24mm a lot? Are you at 55mm for a lot of your walkaround shots and still not close enough? Do you need the extra stop of light, or better OOF blur for portraits? Those are the factors to consider in comparing the 24-105mm and the 17-55mm.