Indecision On Lens Choices

[zacotton]

Hello all! This is my second post here, and I'm a newly joined member. However, I've been lurking around this site for months garnering up as much information as I can possibly get from you folks (which is atremendousamount, if you weren't sure). It's certainly helped lead me to how to look at gear, and decide what is/isn't good for specific things. Typically I shoot scenery/landscape shots, so more often than not I'm outdoors with it. Having a lower aperture I don't believe is something of a big deal to me, however having it for faster action shots would always be nice. F/4 has always been enough for me.


However, recently I've been at a bit of an impasse. Back in December/January I purchased a Rebel T1i body+kit, Manfrotto tripod/head, as well as the Canon 70-200 f/4 non-IS lens. Everything's been working wonderfully for me. However, there areoccasionsin which I had more reach than the 200 can give me. So I've been looking around at different options, of course starting with the 100-400 f/4-5.6 that you all boast so much. I also looked at teleconverters, and upping to the f/2.8 version of my lens.


At current, I think that the 100-400 is a bit much considering my body, as well as it's price range. However, it is certainly something I wish to add to my collection sometime in the future. So I looked at the easier option, throwing on a 1.4x teleconverter. Again, based on from what I've gotten from this site, the 1.4x wouldn't kill my quality toobad, and I'm certain I'd want to avoid the 2x. However, the 1.4x only gets me out to an effective 280mm, which isn't too much of a drastic increase. So I did some more digging, and talking with friends, and thought about perhaps the 75-300 f/4-5.6. I work with someone who has a side job at the local paper and does some sports photography and what not, and uses this lens and claims to have no problems or issues with quality. (And it's much cheaper! ) However, Bryan's review makes me wary of it. If the 300mm wasstill an issue for me in terms of not being long enough, I figured perhaps I could put a 1.4x on that, but again I'm very cautious about what it'll do to my image quality. Not having Full Time Manual is another con to the lens, as it is a nice feature. However, in reality, whether or not it's a feature I truly use all the time is probably debatable.


I'm at a loss for what I should be looking at, as the 100-400 seems far above what I should be looking at, not to mention the punch to the wallet, and the 75-300 seems to be an under-performer. Any input you guys might have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[Sheiky]

Hey mate!

Typically I shoot scenery/landscape shots, so more often than not I'm outdoors with it.

Then what exactly do you need the long focal range for? Could you post an example photo where the 200mm wasn't enough?


There are a few things:


the 100-400L is in my opinion a brutal lens, very good for hiking and photographing wildlife etc. However it is pretty big (much bigger than your 70-200 []) and the price is not that small either.


The 75-300 I can't really comment on since I don't have any experience with it. But read this (quote from Bryan's review):A 70-200 L lens with theCanon Extender 1.4x IIresulted in better image quality than the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens alone.


Hope that takes care of one dilemma []


An 1.4 extender on your lens might do the trick, but you'll get an aperture of f5.6 and an effective range of maximum 280mm. You need to add a bit of shutterspeed or ISO to adjust for BOTH factors if you want to shoot handheld...think about that.


In short terms: I don't know if the 80mm extra focal length would suit your needs, but if so...the extender could be the best option for you. Else you might get to get used to the shortage and crop a lot [] Sometimes you need to take it as it is.


I'm sure that if you had the money to buy an 800mm lens you'd also find times where you wouldn't have enough focal length.


Hope I helped a bit and didn't make it even harder []


Good luck and enjoy your time here,


Jan

[neuroanatomist]

You already have the 70-200mm f/4L, which delivers excellent image quality.

So I did some more digging, and talking with friends, and thought about perhaps the 75-300 f/4-5.6.

Let's be clear about the lens you're considering - there's an EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, which is a cheap consumer zoom (~$200). The build quality of that lens is poor and the image quality (IQ) is equivalently poor. There's also the EF 70-300mmf/4-5.6 IS USM lens, which is a mid-range consumer zoom that has decent IQ and better build quality, and has IS. But, that lens is not so good from 200-300mm, the range you're looking to move into. Honestly, since you have the 70-200mm f/4L, I suspect you'd be disappointed with the IQ of either of those consumer zoom lenses, and 300mm is not all that much longer than 200mm (i.e. you'd likely be better off cropping, as Jan suggested).

If the 300mm wasstill an issue for me in terms of not being long enough, I figured perhaps I could put a 1.4x on that, but again I'm very cautious about what it'll do to my image quality.

Presumably you mean a 3rd party teleconverter, since the Canon 1.4x Extender is not compatible with the 70-300mm or 75-300mm zooms. A 1.4x TC on a lens that's f/5.6 (which both consumer zooms are at the long end) means your lens is f/8. Only 1-series bodies can autofocus with an f/8 lens (which is one reason the Canon 1.4x won't work with the consumer zooms). Some 3rd party TCs don't report the aperture properly, so your camera will try to autofocus - but AF will perform poorly (if at all) in some conditions.


For getting to 300mm (well, 280mm, but the 20mm is not significant), your best (and most cost-effective) option would be the 1.4x Extender on your 70-200mm f/4L. As you can see from [url="http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=452&Sample=0&am p;FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=358&CameraComp= 452&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0]this comparison[/url], the 70-200mm f/4L @ 280mm f/5.6 is much sharper than the 70-300mm @ 300mm f/5.6. Certainly, you'll take a slight IQ hit from the TC, but it's not too bad. With a 2x TC, you're again at f/8, meaning you lose AF.


So, the bottom line is that if you think ~300mm will do the trick, the 1.4x Extender II plus the 70-200mm f/4L that you already have is the best option.


[quote=zacotton]I think that the 100-400 is a bit much considering my body[/quote]


I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is it that such a big lens with a Rebel hanging on the back will look silly? [:P] Personally, I don't think there's such a thing as 'too much lens' for any body. The lens has a much greater impact on IQ than the body, meaning a good lens on a T1i will deliver better IQ than a mediocre lens on a $6K 1DsIII. Also, keep in mind that a lens will last you through multiple body upgrades - it's a long-term investment.


If you need 400mm, the 100-400mm is a great option if you can afford it - IQ is excellent, and the zoom range allows for a lot of flexibility. If you like, you can check out<span>[url="/forums/t/4121.aspx]lynx0069's recent air show shots [/url]taken with a Rebel XSi and 100-400mm, or look over a [url="http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=589&amp;camera=1201&amp;perpage=30&amp;focal _min=none&amp;focal_max=none&amp;aperture_min=none &amp;aperture_max=none&amp;iso_min=none&amp;iso_ma x=none&amp;exp_min=none&amp;exp_max=none&amp;res=3]set of images on pixel-peeper[/url] taken with the T1i + 100-400mm. Personally, I have theEF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]LIS USM and it performs wonderfully on my 7D.

[atulmehta1000]

Hi! Am a new member and am in a similar dilemma as yours since the 75-300 is reasonably priced as compared to 100-400.


Am contemplating 55-250 too; but reading various reviews and posts by others; is making my already dizzy head.... spin more!!!


If you get any response which helps you on this matter, please let me know.


I too was contemplating using a reasonably priced lens with a converter, but since I don't know much about these thing, am at a loss. Reading posts &amp; reviews surely helps, but will take time to digest I guess.

[neuroanatomist]

the 100-400mm is a great option if you can afford it

It's even more affordable right now - Amazon has it for $1440 - for $170 less than the usual price. It was listed at that price earlier this month, but they sold out of them in a day or two. It seems to be back in stock now.

[atulmehta1000]

Thanks for the info, but even with the reduction in price, it's beyond my budget currently. I finally went and bought a ES-F 55-250 IS lens yesterday since I was going crazy reading posts, reviews etc and couldn't take it any longer. Hope my decision was good.... will know only after I take pictures. Thanks guys for your advise &amp; help. Now that am a member, will be with you guys. Cheers!!!

[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

[Sheiky]

I finally went and bought a ES-F 55-250 IS lens yesterday since I was going crazy reading posts, reviews etc and couldn't take it any longer. Hope my decision was good....

Congratulations, I hope you'll like it! And I'm pretty sure you will. It will help you make some great photos. 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 [:P]



<div>

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.

Probably the best idea. You're falling right in the marketing gap between normal lenses and most L and more professional lenses...(the 70-200 f4L is an exception)


And I doubt if the f2.8 will be a good choice for you. The f4L is sharp from f4 on. The f2.8L is a bit softer, so often you'd want to push it one stop anyway. It does let in one stop(two times) as much light, but if you don't really need it...


Good luck, Jan


Ps: indoors f2.8 could be better than f4 from time to time, but you'll see that even f2.8 lacks in a lot of circumstances. So you're going to pop up a flash anyways. Also keep in mind that you're talking about hand-held shots indoors. With a focal length of 200mm, f2.8 makes it easier than f4, but you'll still need quite a shutterspeed to correct for your own motion. General rule 1/320 sec minimum for steady handheld shots at 200mm...Of course it's just a rule and with more steady hands, you might get to 1/160th of a second or something, but for inside that's also quite hard to achieve. The 70-200 f4L IS could help you out better for those shots I think. It has more advantage inside I think than the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS.
</div>

[zacotton]

The 70-200 f4L IS could help you out better for those shots I think. It has more advantage inside I think than the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS.

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.


Thanks guys, you've been a ton of help! And certainly saved me money!


@atul;


Sheiky's right, L-lenses are an addiction. ;P





-Zach

[Sheiky]

The 70-200 f4L IS could help you out better for those shots I think. It has more advantage inside I think than the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS.

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.

I know, but this was mainly for indoors comparison vs the f2.8 non-IS version. I know that IS on these focal lengths can be very welcome, although if you do bring a tripod anyway I guess it's indeed a waste of money for 9/10 situations.


Jan