70-200 f2.8L IS

[Brendan7]

@bob williams


I suggest the 300 f/4. It has decent macro capabilities and twice as fast as your 100-400 from 300mm on. I have one (it's my only lens) and love it. It may not be a huge step up, heck you'd make money selling your 100-400 and buying the 300. The 70-200 2.8 is not a good wildlife lens, the f4 IS version is considered to be much better for birds, etc. If you need something telephoto and something fast, you're stuck with the $4000 300 f/2.8. But I think the IQ of the 4/300 is better, but not quite "outstanding".





@bill W


Why do you want a 70-200 for your hummingbird gardens? As you know they're tiny and so max magnification is very important. at least .2x is nice. Have you considered/do you have a 100 macro? Wickerprints has shot some beauties with that lens. just an idea. Good luck with that 7D!


brendan

[Bill W]

Brendan.....I have a couple of reasons concerning your question; the obvious would be the 2.8 for the shaded garden and secondly I don't want tostress the HBs by setting up (tripod, camera and myself)too closely to the feeding area.


If you are going to shoot wildlife, you need to recognize the animals'comfort zone and IMHOthe 100is too close.


BTW....thanks for your input on the 7D. I thought I'd have some hits from folks that actually made the transition...que sera, sera.


I'm still on the fence w/my decision....lens, camera (I'm familiar w/the glass mantra, but there are always exceptions)? I'm not in a hurry, the HBs show up in May.


Bill

[bob williams]

I suggest the 300 f/4. It has decent macro capabilities and twice as fast as your 100-400 from 300mm on. I have one (it's my only lens) and love it. It may not be a huge step up, heck you'd make money selling your 100-400 and buying the 300.

Thanks Brendan. Solid points to consider.