i want to get closer to the action!

mushy

I have a Canon 20D with a 70-300 IS USM, but i want more! I shhot alot of nature (birds etc) and sports (mainly rock climbing) is it worth buying either a tamron or canon TC or should i be saving for a 400 prime. Plus if i go a TC do i go a 1.4 or a 2. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Andy

mushy wrote:

I have a Canon 20D with a 70-300 IS USM, but i want more! I shhot alot of nature (birds etc) and sports (mainly rock climbing) is it worth buying either a tamron or canon TC or should i be saving for a 400 prime. Plus if i go a TC do i go a 1.4 or a 2. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

The 400 f/5.6L is a sweet lens. If you have the 70-300DO IS, I'm fairly certain you can't put a TC on it... double check that. In any case, you wouldn't want to put a TC on it most likely, due to image degradation.

mushy

Andy wrote:

The 400 f/5.6L is a sweet lens. If you have the 70-300DO IS, I'm fairly certain you can't put a TC on it... double check that. In any case, you wouldn't want to put a TC on it most likely, due to image degradation.

Cheers Andy, it isn't the DO as i never found a convincing review on that lens that made me want one.

morrisphotography2003

Andy wrote:

The 400 f/5.6L is a sweet lens. If you have the 70-300DO IS, I'm fairly certain you can't put a TC on it... double check that. In any case, you wouldn't want to put a TC on it most likely, due to image degradation.

I believe the TC is for fixed focal length lenses only, and like Andy said even if it worked your image would suffer greatly. The best bet is to go ahead and save your money up and buy the 400.
Bob.

gluwater

The TC's will not work with the 70-300. They are not only for fixed focal length lenses either. Complements of B&H: Canon TC compatability chart. The Tamron TC's may work because they don't report to the camera but the quality degradation of a TC would not be worth the extra reach.

DoctorIt

morrisphotography2003 wrote:

I believe the TC is for fixed focal length lenses only

not true

your image would suffer greatly

also not (always) true

Before my switch to Nikon, I had a Sigma 100-300/4 and a 1.4TC. The results with this zoom/TC combo were great, and quality did not suffer. That being said, I don't think any TC will fit on the Canon 70-300. And yes, if it did, a non-fixed aperture lens like that probably would suffer.

How much weight do you want to carry around? That above combo that I had (all Sigma) wasn't all that huge, reasonably priced, and was a 520/5.6 lens at the long end with the TC. Made for some nice shots.

Long Canon primes are very very pricey.

DanielB

DoctorIt wrote:

Long Canon primes are very very pricey.

the door swings both ways erik

DoctorIt

DanielB wrote:

the door swings both ways erik

shouldn't you be in bed young man?

edit: long (blank) primes are very very pricey.

Excuse me while I go put my camera in macro mode and take some photos...
smartypants.

DanielB

DoctorIt wrote:

Excuse me while I go put my camera in macro mode and take some photos...
smartypants.

:giggle

shouldn't you be in bed young man?

its only 10:30 here :cool

mushy

looks like i have opened up a can of worms here!
Who else do quality 400mm lenses worth looking at without the Canon price tag. I only shoot for personal fun so i'm not sure if i can justify Canon $$.

DoctorIt

mushy wrote:

looks like i have opened up a can of worms here!
Who else do quality 400mm lenses worth looking at without the Canon price tag. I only shoot for personal fun so i'm not sure if i can justify Canon $$.

Long and cheap definitely do not go together. And again, its not a Canon thing, I was simply replying to your Canon question. Even the nice long Sigma primes aren't cheap.

There is however one option that springs to mind: "Bigma"

It's a Sigma 50-500mm zoom that can be had for a song on the used market, especially if you find an "older" non-DG version (that could be as low as $600-$700), and its optical quality is quite a delight at that price point. Its not tiny, but not exactly huge either. Search the forums here for "Bigma" and you'll find some threads that include opinions and shots.

ian408

DoctorIt wrote:

It's a Sigma 50-500mm zoom that can be had for a song on the used market, especially if you find an "older" non-DG version (that could be as low as $600-$700), and its optical quality is quite a delight at that price point. Its not tiny, but not exactly huge either. Search the forums here for "Bigma" and you'll find some threads that include opinions and shots.

I think this is the same lens that SteveCav has been shooting with. Boy, he's
got some great shots with that bad boy.

Ian

DanielB

ian408 wrote:

I think this is the same lens that SteveCav has been shooting with. Boy, he's
got some great shots with that bad boy.

Ian

you could also check out the

Sigma 80-400 f/4-5.6 EX HSM OS

very nice lense.... lower apeture than the Bigma if you don't mind sacrificing the extra 100mm, but that is easily made up for by the OS(sigma version of IS)


just another option on the table:D


Daniel