Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 10, 2006, 10:39 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Default

I can´t decide which of these to buy. I need something at the long end for nature shotsandsomeoutdoor sport now and then.
If i chose either the EF 200 f2.8 or the EF 70-200 f4 - then I want to supply with the Extender 1.4x.

Ireally can´t decide,which one to buy. I think all lenses produce execellent image quality according to the reviews, that I have been reading.

What would you suggest me to buy?
Cyberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 10, 2006, 11:36 AM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Cyberboy,

Can you give more details by what you mean by 'nature shots' and 'sports shots'?

Also, you've got a pretty big price difference between the 200 2.8, 70-200 f4 (around $650) and the 100-400 (around $1400).

But, expound on what nature shots and sports shots you want to take and confirm what your budget is - is it really $1400?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 12:01 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Default

More precise description:

Sports shots - my daughters riding and her soccer games.

Nature shots - I like walking in the nature - and I should like to take someshots of animals and birds on my way.

I am aware of thebig price difference betweenthe lenses mentioned.
Something inside me tells me, that the EF 100-400 is the right lens for my needs despite of the price. I am not very glad to spend so much money on a singlelens, but on the other hand - maybe it is the cheapest solution in the long run. As I know, it is always expensive to chose wrong.

But maybe I have a silent hope, that somebody here would tell me - that an EF 200 f2.8 + EF Extender 1.4 would be doing very well for me as well.

I forgot to tell that IQ andportability means a lot to me.You should also know that I prefer to handhold most of my shots.


If youmean I do overlook other lenses, which would be the right choice for me - then tell me please.



Cyberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 12:19 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

I have same dilemma, which 'tele' to buy and to have it being good for everything.

Based on what you need, I think F4 would be ok (good for price and weight) but not so good on 1.4x converter.

If you go with 70-200/f4 and 1.4x converter, you reduce your lens 'speed' further and taking 'action' shots would become questionable.

I would go with 70-200/f2.8 Land 1.4x and 2.0x converter. This lens is not so heavy, quality is excellent and you could use 200/1.4x for soccer games and 200/2x for birds and animals. IS would be nice to have but lens becomes heavier and pricier.

Another option (which I personally consider) is to buy Sigma 70-200/2.8 and 1.4 and 2.0 converter. Sigma is by many almost as good as Canon and much cheaper.

I am guessing you are using 1.6x digital camera as well.

For takingbird pictures, sometimes even 400 with 1.4xconvertermay not be 'enough'.Almost always you have to be reasonable close to the subject and maybe use flash as well. If you like taking pictures of birds flying, fast lense is a must.

Right now I am using onlyEF 70-300mm which is another economy sollution with its own advantages with low price and being lightweight. Whenever you do not need the best quality this lens is ok and I can use it as a backup.






GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 1:55 PM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Cyberboy wrote:
Quote:
Sports shots - my daughters riding and her soccer games.

Nature shots - I like walking in the nature - and I should like to take someshots of animals and birds on my way.



But maybe I have a silent hope, that somebody here would tell me - that an EF 200 f2.8 + EF Extender 1.4 would be doing very well for me as well.

I forgot to tell that IQ andportability means a lot to me.You should also know that I prefer to handhold most of my shots.

Well, this is still a difficult dilema. I would personally advise staying away from a prime - your interests are too varied and with sports like soccer or riding using a prime is difficult because the action occurs everywhere.

I think the best solution for you is a 70-200 2.8 plus 1.4x TC (either Canon or Sigma - I have the Sigma versions and they are excellent and will save you some money - but some people have to have Canon). This combo will still be a little short - especially for some wildlife but it gives you the versatility you need.

The 100-400 is IMO a very good wildlife lens. But, it is IMO a not so good sports lens - mostly because of the 5.6 aperture. You just don't get the subject isolation you need. And you can't really use it in poor light. For $1100 you can get a Sigma 100-300 4.0 lens or for $2000 you can get a Sigma 120-300 2.8 lens that are both much better sports lenses than the Canon 100-400 (at $1400). That's the problem though - once you get past the 70-200 2.8 into longer ranges, good wildlife lenses and good sports lenses diverge. I shoot American football, not soccer - but I much preferred the shots from my 70-200 2.8 plus 1.4x TC to the shots from the Canon 100-400. The picture quality on the 100-400 is outstanding but that lack of isolation really bothers me (although it might not bother you).

You can get the Sigma 70-200 2.8 plus 1.4x TC for around $900 USD or the Canon 70-200 2.8 for $1100 (TC is another $200 I think). I would really stay away from the 75-300 lenses though.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 3:42 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

I don't have the 100-400L, but I wondered at what focal length it switches from F4 to F5.6? Anyone know?

Thanks,
Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 4:28 PM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

barthold wrote:
Quote:
I don't have the 100-400L, but I wondered at what focal length it switches from F4 to F5.6? Anyone know?

Thanks,
Barthold
I have one - it switches from f/4.5 to f/5.6 @ about 250mm on the lens barrel
(i.e. by 300mm it's already f/5.6...)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 5:06 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Default

Well - its difficult I can see.

I think the EF 70-200 f2.8 + Kenko or Canon TC could be a good choice - my only complaint here is the weight (1310 g) + 20d (685g)+ TC (130/200g) - total weight more than 2 kg.

I am still considering - butin the meantime I willbe listening to good advices.

Thank you for your help so far.





Cyberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 8:51 PM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Cyberboy wrote:
Quote:
- my only complaint here is the weight (1310 g) + 20d (685g)+ TC (130/200g) - total weight more than 2 kg.

I am stil considering - butin the meantime I willbe listening to good advices.
Well - The EF 70-200 f2.8 (1310g) + TC (200g) is 1510g... total

The Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX is slightly lighter @ 1440g with no TC required
1. It's costs less than any 70-200 f/2.8 + TC combo
2. The 100-300 f/4 EX is practically a prime (check its MTF's against the Canon EF-300 f/4)
3. A lens without TC is always sharper than a combo with (same speed @ f/4 combined)

-> But when combined with a 1.4x - It becomes a 140-420mm f/5.6 making owning the EF 100-400mm f/5.6 redundant :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 6:25 AM   #10
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
3. A lens without TC is always sharper than a combo with (same speed @ f/4 combined)

-> But when combined with a 1.4x - It becomes a 140-420mm f/5.6 making owning the EF 100-400mm f/5.6 redundant :idea:
Which is it NHL? You can't have it both ways :blah:Either a lens without TC is better or it's not. You can't argue the 100-300 is better than 70-200 + TC because the latter is using a TC and then a couple sentances later argue the 100-300 + TC is better than 100-400 without (well you can argue that - in fact you did).

Also, although the 100-300 is an outstanding lens - you give up a lot by going from 2.8 to 4.0 on the sporting end as well as the flexibility of going down to 70mm. It's absolutely an alternative but it has trade-offs as well. Again, here is where sports and nature drive in two different directions.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 AM.