I have not found much need for anything longer than 200mm on a crop body, but I photograph mainly people and landscapes, not birds or animals running through the bush...100-400 is a big lens to lug around.
I have not found much need for anything longer than 200mm on a crop body, but I photograph mainly people and landscapes, not birds or animals running through the bush...100-400 is a big lens to lug around.
The way I see it, it's a choice between wildlife and sports.Originally Posted by Shoe
70-200 with a 1.4X on a 1.6X crop body gives you a field of view equivalent to 150-450mm on FF 35mm. Personally, I think that's just about perfect for outdoor sports.
Here is a link comparing the two at ~280mm:
ISO 12233 comparison of 100-400 and 70-200 with TC
They're so close that they might as well be identical. There is the tiniest smidgeon of additional CA in the corners, but I wouldn't let that be the deciding factor.
The key difference is that the 100-400 has 100mm more reach. For wildlife photography, you need absolutely all the reach you can get. So if wildlife is more important to you, then get the 100-400.
I spent a few hours shooting both lenses before I decided on the 70-200 f/4 L IS. For me, the features and performance at 70-200 were more important than the extra reach.
You will need to weigh all the pros and cons for yourself:
70-200 f/4 L IS with 1.4X TC:
- Only reaches to 280mm; good enough for sports
- Mind-blowing image quality in the 70-200 range without TC.
- Very good image quality between 200-280 (as good as the 100-400).
- Slightly wider aperture between 100mm and 200mm (constant f/4)
- Newest 4-stop I.S. system
- Weather sealed
- Twist zoom style, non-extending front element
100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS:
- Reaches out to 400mm for wildlife
- Not quite as good in 100-200 range, but still very good.
- Slightly slower aperture at up to 200mm (4.5@100mm, 5.0@200mm)
- Oldest I.S. system
- Not weather sealed
- Push-pull zoom, extending front element, zoom creep
Of course, don't forget to read Bryan's reviews of each lens, too; I'm sure there are other differences that I did not point out.
Hello there,
Please note that saying "wildlife, sports, landscapes ... plenty of indoor activites (basketball, volleyball)" is like saying you want everything under the sun! ... but we all do that, lets try to rectify the situation.
I would strongly recommend against tele-converters, image quality just isn't the same, it's a toy to play with, no lens you can afford on a $2k budget will deliver the quality out of it. (maybe 70-200 2.8 ... but you won't get much else).
You said 24-70mm 2.8 ... consider why you need that lens, it's mostly for close in portraits, like wedings or b-day parties or low light.
Here my thoughts: yousaid landscapes, you'd need wide 17 or even a 10mm for that, 24 just doesn't do it. Wildlife means you need the 400mm or at least 300ish, 200 won't cut it, but note that wildlife may not stay your priority. Outdoor sports aren't that demanding compare to indoor sports, where you need fast primes in long range.
I'd suggest a few lenses, mix and match to get your price range:
(1) 10-20 Sigma - $500 - you will never again see 17 as "wide", landscapes will shine.
(1) 17-55mm 2.8 IS - $1000 - a superb general purpose and very good landscape lens, portratis will be good as well.
(1) 18-55mm IS - $250 - the NEW kit lens when stopped down delivers quite nice results for landscapes on the cheap (older one is not worth it)
(2) 50mm 1.8 - $100 - not quite long enough for indoor sports but on the budget ...
(2) 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2 - $400 - will serve well enough as indoor action/sports (it's fast enough, but not long enough)
(2) 70-200mm 2.8 L - $1200 - portraits will shine and indoor action will be quite good (it's long enough but not fast enough)
(2) 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma - $800 - image quailty isn't quite the L but you get what you want on the budget.
(2) 18-200mm IS - $800 - with a combination of a prime 85mm you can handle pretty much everything else you listed.
(3) 70-300mm IS - $600 - will handle the long end pretty well.
(3) 100-400mm L IS - $1400 - one of the best telephoto zoom you can ever get, wildlife (maybe) and outdoor sports will shine.
Since you're not sure about your needs consider getting things off craigslist, you're taking 40% off here, so you can sell it later (for about the same so you don't loose money) if you find yourself not using it much ... watch out for frauds and broken equipment, but you can find quite good stuff there, always shop in person and try equimpent first.
As a starter kit I'd recommend 10-20, 18-200 IS or 70-300 IS, 50 1.8 (or 1.4 if you could) ... shoot for a bit and go from there, but I'd imagine in a few years you'd end up with: 10-20 or 17-55, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8 or 100-400.
Good luck(excuse the long post, but choosing is never easy)
I do not own the 70-200/4 or a TC so I can't tell you first hand, BUT I will tell you that the only lens at f/4 I would use one on is the f/4IS version and any number of Canon's tele's (thinking about one for my 100-400 for use on a 1-series to retain AF). I have, however, tested the Canon 1.4x out on my 70-200/2.8IS and was not enamored by the results--specifically AF speed which seemed completely diminished--IQ was nothing to write home about either.
Personally, for me it's the 100-400 everytime. Yes it is a relatively old lens but it gets the job done and will perform much better than the 70-200/4+1.4x combo. In any case niether of them are ideal for indoor sports, but for outdoor field sports (day games) the 100-400 is great (I can tell you from first hand experience) and without the TC the 70-200/4 is great as well.
I still think the 17-55, 85/1.8 and 70-300IS combo will be suit you very well for right now. Use that kit and find out where your lacking and go from there.
You will need to weigh all the pros and cons for yourself:
70-200 f/4 L IS with 1.4X TC:
- Only reaches to 280mm; good enough for sports
- Mind-blowing image quality in the 70-200 range without TC.
- Very good image quality between 200-280 (as good as the 100-400).
- Slightly wider aperture between 100mm and 200mm (constant f/4)
- Newest 4-stop I.S. system
- Weather sealed
- Twist zoom style, non-extending front element
100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS:
- Reaches out to 400mm for wildlife
- Not quite as good in 100-200 range, but still very good.
- Slightly slower aperture at up to 200mm (4.5@100mm, 5.0@200mm)
- Oldest I.S. system
- Not weather sealed
- Push-pull zoom, extending front element, zoom creep
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Yes, the 70-200f/4IS performs very well with a 1.4x TC mounted but you don't mention anything about AF speed when the TC is mounted and while weathersealing is great it's negligable when it comes to the OP's 40D--which is not a weather sealed body. As for the IS system, would it really matter when shooting sports at 1/200th? In every other case I agree 4-stop IS > 2-stop IS.
The 17-40 f4 L has very nice bokeh quality due to its seven blade aperture. Although since it is such a wide lens and has a maximum aperture of f4 you have to be fairly close to your subject for the background to be sufficiently out of focus. I don't mind this at all since I mainly use it for landscapes, and if I do get in close it has L quality bokeh.
I think it is really nitpicking about sharpness as I am pretty sure 99% of people cannot tell the difference between lenses when looking at an actual photograph. In the end you should really choose what glass suits your needs best or how the equipment works for you. Go into a store, try out demos (be sure not to give into salesman pressure if they do that), just see what lens feels right for you.
Excellent points, M. Versweyveld. It really comes down to what's more important: 200 or 400.
So do the EF-S' Focal Lengthsreflect true to the numbers or doesthe 1.6 crop factor still need to be multiplied in?Since reviews for this lens seem to be outstanding across the board, I am re-evaluating my lens combos and (gulp!) my budget. [8-)]
I was under the impression (via father-in-law) that any length 200mm or less in conjunction with a TC was a waste of quality and dollars.
It reflects the true numbers.
Think of it this way:
A 50mm lens on a 40D camera will have a field of view similar to an 80mm lens on FF35 camera. The crop factor is just a shortcut to understand equivalent field of view.
I was under the impression (via father-in-law) that any length 200mm or less in conjunction with a TC was a waste of quality and dollars.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
That's a good rule of thumb, but reality is not quite that simple. You can see for yourself using Bryan's ISO 12233 comparisons that several 200mm lenses yeild excellent quality with a TC. At least the 200mm f/2.8 L prime and the 70-200 f/4 L IS. The quality degrades only slightly for these, just like the $3,000+ super telephotos. Some of the super telephotos, like the 300mm f/4 L IS, actually do a little worse (at least Bryan's copy did).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote