Which lens should I rent? ASAP

Candid Arts

I have the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS, 100 f/2.8 Macro, 50 1/4, 10-22, and I'm looking to rent a telephoto lens for my one week trip to Seattle for spring break. I'm thinking the 70-200 f/2.8L IS (as I LOVE:lust:lust:lust:lust:lust this lens), or the 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS. I'm really not a fan of the push pull that the 100-400 has, but it has the extra reach. But the 70-200 has a f/2.8 versus the 4.5-5.6.

Just looking to get some opinions on which one you guys think I should rent. I've shot the 70-200, and my bank account is waiting to be able to buy it. Never shot the 100-400 though. I doubt I'll be NEEDING the 2.8, but it's always nice to have the option, I'm sure I'll be trying to get a wider DOF, so I wouldn't be shooting at 2.8 anyways...

So...have at it...

ziggy53

Candid Arts wrote:

I have the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS, 100 f/2.8 Macro, 50 1/4, 10-22, and I'm looking to rent a telephoto lens for my one week trip to Seattle for spring break. I'm thinking the 70-200 f/2.8L IS (as I LOVElustlust this lens), or the 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS. I'm really not a fan of the push pull that the 100-400 has, but it has the extra reach. But the 70-200 has a f/2.8 versus the 4.5-5.6.

Just looking to get some opinions on which one you guys think I should rent. I've shot the 70-200, and my bank account is waiting to be able to buy it. Never shot the 100-400 though. I doubt I'll be NEEDING the 2.8, but it's always nice to have the option, I'm sure I'll be trying to get a wider DOF, so I wouldn't be shooting at 2.8 anyways...

So...have at it...

What do you plan to shoot?
Will you need the rented lens to shoot interior or night images?
Would you be opposed to renting the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L and renting a 1.4x teleconverter?
What sort of image quality are you looking for?
Anything else you can think of or wish to share that is pertinent?

Candid Arts

ziggy53 wrote:

What do you plan to shoot?
Will you need the rented lens to shoot interior or night images?
Would you be opposed to renting the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L and renting a 1.4x teleconverter?
What sort of image quality are you looking for?
Anything else you can think of or wish to share that is pertinent?

Mostly outdoors, city stuff. Probably some portraiture.
Night images yes, interior...maybe. I also have the 580 EXII and 420 EX...
I was thinking the 70-200 and 1.4 also, but that's only 280mm. the 2x would give me the 400mm @ f/5.6.
I'm always looking for the best IQ.
Uhmmm...Carrying around the 70-200 is no problem for me at all, how is the 100-400 in comparison for weight?

I think that's about it that I could think of.

ziggy53

Candid Arts wrote:

Mostly outdoors, city stuff. Probably some portraiture.
Night images yes, interior...maybe. I also have the 580 EXII and 420 EX...
I was thinking the 70-200 and 1.4 also, but that's only 280mm. the 2x would give me the 400mm @ f/5.6.
I'm always looking for the best IQ.
Uhmmm...Carrying around the 70-200 is no problem for me at all, how is the 100-400 in comparison for weight?

I think that's about it that I could think of.

The difference in FOV between 280mm and 400mm is not as much as you might think. If you need the extra light gathering power of f2.8@200mm or f4@280mm then the 70-200mm plus converter is the way to go. Most people do not like the amount of image quality lost when using the 70-200mm and 2x converter. (Canon does not recommend it and neither do I.)

I recommend the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM and Canon 1.4x teleconverter. While the converter does add some CA and slight image softening I find the combination acceptable. Focus speed is also reasonably well preserved except in low light.

Candid Arts

ziggy53 wrote:

The difference in FOV between 280mm and 400mm is not as much as you might think. If you need the extra light gathering power of f2.8@200mm or f4@280mm then the 70-200mm plus converter is the way to go. Most people do not like the amount of image quality lost when using the 70-200mm and 2x converter. (Canon does not recommend it and neither do I.)

I recommend the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM and Canon 1.4x teleconverter. While the converter does add some CA and slight image softening I find the combination acceptable. Focus speed is also reasonably well preserved except in low light.

Gotchya. Alright then. Well it sounds like the 70-200 and 1.4x would be best, which was my original thought as well.

With the teleconverter, does the min. aperture change as well? Like how the 2.8 becomes a 4, does the 32 become a...45?

ziggy53

Candid Arts wrote:

...

With the teleconverter, does the min. aperture change as well? Like how the 2.8 becomes a 4, does the 32 become a...45?

Yes, and you really don't want to use the teleconverter if you don't need it. I only add the teleconverter when I need the reach and leave it off otherwise. The converter is not designed to work at less than 100mm.

Candid Arts

ziggy53 wrote:

Yes, and you really don't want to use the teleconverter if you don't need it. I only add the teleconverter when I need the reach and leave it off otherwise. The converter is not designed to work at less than 100mm.

I definitely don't plan on using the teleconverter unless I need it. But might be able to get some cool long exposure shots at mid day with an f/45...

Thanks for all the info, I'm placing my order now with borrowlenses.

Just for curiosity sake, if I were to use the 2x extender on a lens with min. aperture of 32, would the min aperture then become a f/64?

ziggy53

Candid Arts wrote:

I definitely don't plan on using the teleconverter unless I need it. But might be able to get some cool long exposure shots at mid day with an f/45...

Thanks for all the info, I'm placing my order now with borrowlenses.

Just for curiosity sake, if I were to use the 2x extender on a lens with min. aperture of 32, would the min aperture then become a f/64?

One thing that may not be apparent, the Canon 50D is diffraction limited to f7.6. Very small apertures will look pretty poor except at small image sizes. I suggest that beyond f13 will be less than satisfactory.

I'm all for trying it though. Have a try and let us know.

Candid Arts

ziggy53 wrote:

One thing that may not be apparent, the Canon 50D is diffraction limited to f7.6.

huh?

Very small apertures will look pretty poor except at small image sizes. I suggest that beyond f13 will be less than satisfactory.

I'm all for trying it though. Have a try and let us know.

Really? I'm pretty sure I've shot past f/13 (although rarely) and I think they've turned out great. I dunno. I'd have to look through specific images to see and even then if I've actually printed them out.

But...I will certainly give it my best try... Thanks for the help.

ziggy53

Candid Arts wrote:

huh?
...

Google the phrase, "diffraction limited". (This will become a valuable technique for you in your research and life.)

Candid Arts

ziggy53 wrote:

Google the phrase, "diffraction limited". (This will become a valuable technique for you in your research and life.)

Hahaha...thanks. wait...Google? What is this you speak of?rofl

Art Scott

70-200..............

[Deleted User]

Candid Arts wrote:

Uhmmm...Carrying around the 70-200 is no problem for me at all, how is the 100-400 in comparison for weight?

The 100-400 weighs about a ¼ pound Less than the 70-200 f/2.8