Help me select a lens, please!

[DavidEccleston]

There's a lot more to the IS version than just IS. It has improved optics on the IS version, making it one of the sharpest of Canon's zooms.

Here's Bryan's ISO test chart comparison. Mouse over either the little arrow above the image, or the image itself, to see the IS version.

[cyoung315]

So David, between the 4 and 2.8 IS models (not II version), would i be doing myself a disservice by purchasing the f/4 and not going ahead for the 2.8? I'd like to add in a 2x teleconveter to get back the lost reach from the Sigma. Or should I not worry as much about that and focus on cropping a sharper picture, when necessary?

[thekingb]

So David, between the 4 and 2.8 IS models (not II version), would i be doing myself a disservice by purchasing the f/4 and not going ahead for the 2.8? I'd like to add in a 2x teleconveter to get back the lost reach from the Sigma. Or should I not worry as much about that and focus on cropping a sharper picture, when necessary?

Don't forget about weight. The 2.8 is significantly larger and heavier than the f/4. The IQ difference is negligible. It's all about the extra stop of light and whether you need it.

[cyoung315]

I'll almost certainly be using it outside with lots of sunlight. The Sigma has actually taken some very pleasing shots with great bokah but it never gives crisp sharp subjects, they are always just under sharp but still very nice. Thats a 5-6.3 variable aperture, does the IS f/4 Canon with a 2x teleconverteron that lens sound like a good idea or would I possibly step forward to lean backwards adding the teleconverter?

[thekingb]

If you'll be outside, the f/4 is the way to go; but your camera won't AF with the 2x converter on this lens. For that you'd need the f/2.8.

I wouldn't make decisions based on the 2x converter unless you're looking at the big L super teles that take it pretty well (like the 500mm f/4 II). But the f/2.8 with a 2x is probably better than the sigma at 400mm. Check Bryan's ISO crops and compare.

[Richard Lane]

As kingb has pointed out, the f/4 lens with 2X extender wont AF on your camera. You would need the f/2.8 lens to be able to add the 2X and still keep the maximum aperture at f/5.6 to AF on your camera.

Initially you mentioned that you wanted to fill the gap between 50-105mm. For that the 85mm f/1.8 is great, but you also own the 100mm f/2.8 and they are pretty close in focal length, unless you need f/1.8. Now, it appears that you're looking at longer focal length's which is totally fine by the way. If you really need 300 or 400mm, then the 100-400mm is a good choice too which is more expensive, however you would save some money by not needing to purchase the extenders.

Another option is the "135mm f/2L" ($1000) that was mentioned earlier in this thread. It's a great lens with fast AF, that produces beautiful images. There's no IS, but I find that it's such a fast and lightweight lens that you generally have room to raise the shutter-speed, therefore IS becomes less important. The 135mm can handle the extenders, however it does take a a fairly big hit in IQ with the 2X extender. Generally speaking, it's a good rule to stop down 1/3 to 1 f-stop with the extenders if possible, to reduce the hit in IQ. Of course, the 2X on this lens only gets you to 270mm.

Acceptable with the 1.4X, if you stop down a bit:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=3&APIComp=3


Not that great with the 2X, also stopped down a bit:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API= 4&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =6&APIComp=3


Another option is the "200mm f/2.8L II" ($800) which can also take the 1.4x or 2x extender. It seems to handle the extenders better than the 135mm. Since the 70-200mm f/4 can't accept the 2X on your camera, I will compare the 200mm f/2.8L II to the more expensive 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with 1.4X and 2X.

Comparing 1.4X:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=6&APIComp=1


Comparing 2X:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=7&APIComp=1


Also, keep in mind that the extenders are not cheap, especially if you need two of them, so it's also important to think of what your most frequent focal length will be, and look at the extenders as a bonus.

It's going to be hard to find one lens that covers all of your criteria at that price. So, lets try and figure out what your primary use will be.

Rich

[neuroanatomist]

Initially you mentioned that you wanted to fill the gap between 50-105mm.

It's going to be hard to find one lens that covers all of your criteria at that price. So, lets try and figure out what your primary use will be.

I think Rich's point is excellent. IMO, the idea of 'filling a gap' is irrelevant. Lens selection should be based on what you want to shoot, and then your budget.

So...what's this lens for? Portraits, sports/events, general walkaround, something else?

[cyoung315]

The gap idea stemmed from the 100mm being a fair amount more on my crop sensor, I am extremely pleased with all of the shots I get from that lens but thought I would need something shorter for portrait work. The 70-200 talk is a different lens issue entirely. I have a Sigma 150-500 that I am not totally pleased with and before returning it I wanted input on a superior replacement for it while being mindful of my budget. This lens will be for wildlife, distance wildlife photography. Sorry if i muddied any waters in previous posts.

[thekingb]

The 70-200 will disappoint for "distance wildlife." For that you need 400mm at minimum. There's no good answer that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, as you've experienced with your sigma. 100-400 or 400 f/5.6 prime or 70-300L are the best options for under $1600.

[clemmb]

Mark, I've never purchased from KEH before.

-Chris

KEH is great. They have a 7 day no question asked return policy. All you pay is shipping. They also give all equipment a 6 month warranty. http://www.keh.com/help.aspx#pe17 All the equipment I have purchased from them has been great.