Need Help on "L" Series Zoom!

THE TOUCH

When shooting sports, I am always maxed out at 200mm (prefer not to comment on lens:wink ). So, I'm ready for an upgrade but I'm tossing between the 100-400/5.6 and the 70-200/2.8.

I need the speed of the 70-200 but the zoom of the 100-400 so...

One thought was to get the 70-200 for the sharpness and speed, and use a TC but then I loose 1-2 stops, right? So should I just get the 100-400 and avoid messing with a TC? But the 70-200 is always a good range to have and if I'm in low light, I could just go without the TC and sacrifice zoom for speed. I'm sooooo CONFUSED!!! :crazy

IS is not an issue - strictly sports. And if not, I'll use a tripod!:D

Almost forgot - the push-pull kind of scares me!

Please help!:D

gluwater

Why not consider the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It is more money but seems to be exactly what you're looking for.

THE TOUCH

gluwater wrote:

Why not consider the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It is more money but seems to be exactly what you're looking for.

And buy something other than CANON GLASS!?

Just kidding! That's a pretty sweet lens but $1,000 more is a little out of my range. The price of the 100-400 is really pushing it for me as is.

Thank you for the suggestion.:D

Manfr3d

THE TOUCH wrote:

When shooting sports, I am always maxed out at 200mm (prefer not to comment on lens ). So, I'm ready for an upgrade but I'm tossing between the 100-400/5.6 and the 70-200/2.8.

I need the speed of the 70-200 but the zoom of the 100-400 so...

One thought was to get the 70-200 for the sharpness and speed, and use a TC but then I loose 1-2 stops, right? So should I just get the 100-400 and avoid messing with a TC? But the 70-200 is always a good range to have and if I'm in low light, I could just go without the TC and sacrifice zoom for speed. I'm sooooo CONFUSED!!! :crazy

IS is not an issue - strictly sports. And if not, I'll use a tripod!:D

Almost forgot - the push-pull kind of scares me!

Please help!:D

Its all about tradeoffs.

You can find a comparision of the 70-200 w/TC vs the 100-400 here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

If you want to replace your current -200 zoom with an excellent one
maybe the 70-200/2.8 L will be good enough for you with a TC. It's a
quality tradeoff.

If you want a fast lens with reach get a 300mm/4.0 L, that one will
also work with a 1.4x TC very (!) well. A versality tradeoff. (Same
goes for the 400mm/5.6 L).

Many ppl dont like the push-pull design at all. But I found it to not
worse or better, just different. Once you have to use it, you'll
become used to it like any other thing in life. For 8mp cameras
the 100-400mm will yield very good results. But at f5.6 it's clearly
a speed tradeoff.

Generally, when being confused, try to relax for few days. Go to
your camera dealer and ask him to show you these lenses and
maybe rent them for a weekend. After that I'm sure you've made
up your mind.

just my .02$

hope it helps

Artur C.

It's a big tradeoff....
I own both lenses, and while the 70-200 IS L is a lightbucket compared to the 100-400 L, especially zoomed out all the way, it isn't always practical to be attaching and re-attaching the TC with the 70-200, if you have to get the shot quickly within your preferred zoom range. As for value the 100-400 is hard to beat. If you are using a APS-C sized sensor, the real drawbacks of quality in the 100-400 aren't there. They are both very fine lenses. Be forewarned that at 400mm....the lens is a bit slow at f5.6 and indoor shots need to be taken at high ISO, especially for moving subjects...so it's a big tradeoff between the two.

The 100-400L is a lens everyone loves to hate, or so I've read, but I've had great success with it, and the push-pull zoom is kind of a misnomer. Whether it's push-pull or a rotating zoom, you are still displacing air. With the range of the 100-400 I feel it's more practical to use a push-pull design.

-Art

THE TOUCH

Manfr3d wrote:

Its all about tradeoffs.

You can find a comparision of the 70-200 w/TC vs the 100-400 here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

If you want to replace your current -200 zoom with an excellent one
maybe the 70-200/2.8 L will be good enough for you with a TC. It's a
quality tradeoff.

If you want a fast lens with reach get a 300mm/4.0 L, that one will
also work with a 1.4x TC very (!) well. A versality tradeoff. (Same
goes for the 400mm/5.6 L).

Many ppl dont like the push-pull design at all. But I found it to not
worse or better, just different. Once you have to use it, you'll
become used to it like any other thing in life. For 8mp cameras
the 100-400mm will yield very good results. But at f5.6 it's clearly
a speed tradeoff.

Manfr3d -

THank you for the info. That's a perfect review - guess I'm not the only one that's struggled with this.:):

I definitely need the zoom to upgrade my existing lens so I'll have to wait on the prime. The 300mm has sure been coming up a lot in discussions, must be real nice!

Unfortunately this has been a toss up for a few month now so I wanted to get some advice from you guys!:D

From what I've gathered, I think I need both! But the one that will serve me best at this time would probably be the 100-400.

We'll see! Thank you again!

Red Baron

I don't have the 100-400 but I do have the 70-200 (non-IS) which I use with a Canon 1.4 teleconverter when needed. I shoot a lot of sports (my son's and not professional), indoor stage productions, the occasional wedding or graduation and the usual collection of family photos. I opted for speed over reach and, for my purposes, this was the right choice. 400 at 5.6 indoors isn't of much use for the type of shooting I do.

THE TOUCH

Artur C. wrote:

The 100-400L is a lens everyone loves to hate, or so I've read, but I've had great success with it, and the push-pull zoom is kind of a misnomer. Whether it's push-pull or a rotating zoom, you are still displacing air. With the range of the 100-400 I feel it's more practical to use a push-pull design.-Art

Thank you Art. Do you use both lenses frequently? My thought is to get the 100-400 now, then get the 70-200/2.8 later for low light situations.

As you mentioned, I'm worried about always having to mess with the TC and when I go to shoot, I don't want to always have to wonder - do I put it on, or do I take it off.

Do you find it difficult to switch from rotating to push-pull and visa-versa or do you really get used to it?

Thank you! - Kevin

claudermilk

What I am looking at doing is the 70-200 IS as that range & the IS works well for my typical use. For longer glass I'm looking really hard at the Sigma 120-300 which seems to have a great reputation. Food for thought.

THE TOUCH

claudermilk wrote:

What I am looking at doing is the 70-200 IS as that range & the IS works well for my typical use. For longer glass I'm looking really hard at the Sigma 120-300 which seems to have a great reputation. Food for thought.

Thanks for the food!

the 120-300 is hard to justify when I can get a 70-200/2.8 and a 100-400 for the same price. Sigma would be a hard switch for me.

Bob Bell

claudermilk wrote:

What I am looking at doing is the 70-200 IS as that range & the IS works well for my typical use. For longer glass I'm looking really hard at the Sigma 120-300 which seems to have a great reputation. Food for thought.

I know a few guys who shoot football with the 120-300 and really like it. Zooms are really handed when the action is coming at you.

The IS question has always been interesting. I don't have IS on my 70-200 and it never seemed to be an issue. My goal is bump ISO up so I can always been faster than 1/500.

On the aperture front, the faster the better. If you don't have a 70-200/2.8 then buy one and a canon 1.4x TC. You can be at 280/4 which is pretty good.

Which ever way you go, have 1 body+lens(300 or 400) on a monopod and 1 body+lens (70-200) as your swing. That way you can shoot across a field and yet be able to shoot goal line.

THE TOUCH

Bob Bell wrote:

The IS question has always been interesting. I don't have IS on my 70-200 and it never seemed to be an issue. My goal is bump ISO up so I can always been faster than 1/500.
Which ever way you go, have 1 body+lens(300 or 400) on a monopod and 1 body+lens (70-200) as your swing. That way you can shoot across a field and yet be able to shoot goal line.

I'm with you on the IS. I shoot moving objects - IS is pointless. And if it's not moving...then I have time for a tripod!

Thanks for the tips!

johno

What kind of sports are you shooting? I have been shooting some football shots for a local am team where I live with the canon 70-200 f4. You can take a look at my gallery for examples of what that lens can do.

I do struggle in low light. It's not easy at all. If I could move up to the 70-200 2.8, I would without thinking about it.

Are you selling your pics? If so, most folks only buy 4x6, 5x7 and sometimes 8x10's... You could get away with shooting Large jpg and crop them down to Medium or 4mp images. Sure it's a lot of work, but the lens you and I need is a lot of money.

Take a look at my sports gallery. The password protected page is the large to smaller crop idea. The password is "tanner". I block it until I can get all the pics posted. It's takes some time in post to check the levels etc.

All this from a new sports photo guy. Just trying to share and learn at the same time.

peace.
johno~

THE TOUCH

johno wrote:

What kind of sports are you shooting? I have been shooting some football shots for a local am team where I live with the canon 70-200 f4. You can take a look at my gallery for examples of what that lens can do.

Are you selling your pics? If so, most folks only buy 4x6, 5x7 and sometimes 8x10's... You could get away with shooting Large jpg and crop them down to Medium or 4mp images. Sure it's a lot of work, but the lens you and I need is a lot of money.peace.johno~

Johno - Right now I'm shooting soccer & Paintball (indoor & outdoor). I've been using my current lens which is a ....*cough*55-200*cough*. Every time I shoot I am always maxed out at 200mm and on a regulation soccer field I'm only shooting ~1/4 of the field. Everything else is just too far away. I always found football to be a little easier on the range because it's always within ~50 yards.

Love your work - I was hoping for more images from Africa! I would love to take an outreach trip there!

- Kevin

johno

THE TOUCH wrote:

Johno - Right now I'm shooting soccer & Paintball (indoor & outdoor). I've been using my current lens which is a ....*cough*55-200*cough*. Every time I shoot I am always maxed out at 200mm and on a regulation soccer field I'm only shooting ~1/4 of the field. Everything else is just too far away. I always found football to be a little easier on the range because it's always within ~50 yards.

Love your work - I was hoping for more images from Africa! I would love to take an outreach trip there!

- Kevin

Thanks Kevin. I have more Africa shots, just not posted.:cry photos online are fun, but you have to ask yourself, "how much is to much?"

Soccer, ehh? I never liked that sport as much... to much running. oh and 45 minute halfs. I get tired just thinking about it. Paintball!? I can see why you would want more zoom.

Why not give Sigma a try. After you've sold a few photos and made some cash, sell it and upgrade. BTW, the folks who are buying the pics don't have as critical an eye as the photographer does.

Good luck.
johno~

Manfr3d

THE TOUCH wrote:

I've been using my current lens which is a ....*cough*55-200*cough*.

Reminds me of an anecdote.


The famous German photographer Helmut Newton in a restaurant:

The Chef to Helmut Newton: You make wonderful photographs Mr. Newton, you must have a really good camera.
After finishing his meal Newton replies: Mr. Chef, you made a wonderful dish, you must have really good pots.

:

Seefutlung

THE TOUCH wrote:

Thanks for the food!

the 120-300 is hard to justify when I can get a 70-200/2.8 and a 100-400 for the same price. Sigma would be a hard switch for me.

Dude ... the Sigma 120-300 2.8 is the best all-around sports zoom available (period). It is big and expensive but if you have sideline access ... nothing is better. I shoot a lot of sports and I used to be a news photog ... if all you care about is sports ...this is the ticket.

That being said ... if you shoot more than sports ... than you can get a couple of lenses for the same price (as you noted before). I was in the store ... had the 120-300 mounted on my camera ... but I ended up with the Canon 70-200 2.8 and a Bigma (Sigma 50-500). THe Bigma and Dust Pumper have similar MTF, the Pumper has IS ... the Bigma has greater range ... I went for the Bigma. IS is nice but is mostly useless for sports and is handy only some of the time. The greater range of the Bigma is usefull all the time.

Seefutlung

For night shooting, forget both the Pumper and the Bigma ... but the 120-300 is supreme. I shoot a lot of soccer (check out my site), at 200 I can cover about 2/3rds of the pitch. At 300 mmh 90+%. I've used both the Pumper and the Bigma for daylight sporting events (soccer and swimming) ... both gave equal results. If you are using a cropped sensor camera like an XT or 20D, then on the long end the Pumper delivers a perspect of 640mm while the Bigma is at 800mm.

THE TOUCH

johno wrote:

Thanks Kevin. I have more Africa shots, just not posted.:cry photos online are fun, but you have to ask yourself, "how much is to much?"

Soccer, ehh? I never liked that sport as much... to much running. oh and 45 minute halfs. I get tired just thinking about it. Paintball!? I can see why you would want more zoom.

Why not give Sigma a try. After you've sold a few photos and made some cash, sell it and upgrade. BTW, the folks who are buying the pics don't have as critical an eye as the photographer does.

Good luck.
johno~

Did you go to Africa for ministry?

I love soccer! I blew my back out though so photography still gets me in the action!

I've thought about getting the Canon 100-300/4.5 for ~$300 to get me by. I have three big shoots this weekend and I was hoping to upgrade by then but that's a lot of money to throw down on a split second decision!

THE TOUCH

Manfr3d wrote:

Reminds me of an anecdote.


The famous German photographer Helmut Newton in a restaurant:

The Chef to Helmut Newton: You make wonderful photographs Mr. Newton, you must have a really good camera.
After finishing his meal Newton replies: Mr. Chef, you made a wonderful dish, you must have really good pots.

:

I love it! That's a good one.

THE TOUCH

Seefutlung wrote:

For night shooting, forget both the Pumper and the Bigma ... but the 120-300 is supreme. I shoot a lot of soccer (check out my site), at 200 I can cover about 2/3rds of the pitch. At 300 mmh 90+%. I've used both the Pumper and the Bigma for daylight sporting events (soccer and swimming) ... both gave equal results. If you are using a cropped sensor camera like an XT or 20D, then on the long end the Pumper delivers a perspect of 640mm while the Bigma is at 800mm.

Thanks for the info! Now, instead of trying to decide between two lenses I'm now trying to decide between five lenses!!! Just Kidding!

The 120-300 is just too much money. I'm not there yet. But you really got me thinking twice about the Bigma! Is the quality really okay? How does the quality compare to the 100-400?

Thanks!

Seefutlung

Bigma=






Pumper=
Pumper=


Bigma=

Bob Bell

I am curious why you are branding a sealed lens as a dust pumper?

That makes very little sense especially when compared to other Canon lenses like the 85/1.8. I know people like to give inannimate objects names but I do not see the logic in it.

Seefutlung

Bob Bell wrote:

I am curious why you are branding a sealed lens as a dust pumper?

That makes very little sense especially when compared to other Canon lenses like the 85/1.8. I know people like to give inannimate objects names but I do not see the logic in it.

I make no judgements ... that is the nickname for that lens. But for the sake of this thread I will expand on the nicknames.

Canon 100-400 L IS - aka Dust Pumper. Over time there has been numerous "discussions" on the push-pull zoom system employed by this lens. Many critics have claimed that the push-pull creates air flow into the enternal working of this lens causing dust to be suck into the lens along with the air. I have no proof whether is true or not ... I am just using the nickname, your mileage may vary.

Sigma 50-500 DG EX - aka Bigma. The 50-500 when fully extended is quite long ... or to some big. Bigma is a combination of the words Big and Sigma as Longsigma just doesn't roll off the pallet as nicely as Bigma.

As to the nickname of the Canon lens ... I in no way used the name in a disrespectful manner ... in fact I almost purchased a Pumper but opted for the greater range of the Bigma.

Bigma Range Test can be found here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/1158485

Bob Bell

Seefutlung wrote:

I make no judgements ... that is the nickname for that lens. But for the sake of this thread I will expand on the nicknames.

Canon 100-400 L IS - aka Dust Pumper. Over time there has been numerous "discussions" on the push-pull zoom system employed by this lens. Many critics have claimed that the push-pull creates air flow into the enternal working of this lens causing dust to be suck into the lens along with the air. I have no proof whether is true or not ... I am just using the nickname, your mileage may vary.

Sigma 50-500 DG EX - aka Bigma. The 50-500 when fully extended is quite long ... or to some big. Bigma is a combination of the words Big and Sigma as Longsigma just doesn't roll off the pallet as nicely as Bigma.

As to the nickname of the Canon lens ... I in no way used the name in a disrespectful manner ... in fact I almost purchased a Pumper but opted for the greater range of the Bigma.

Bigma Range Test can be found here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/1158485

I read your paragraph that you were referring to the 70-200 as the Dust Pumper, which is why I was questioning it. I can see the 100-400 being referred to that. I have seen the Bigma name before and after seeing Mike Lane use his with 2 stacked 1.4x TC's can see why

johno

THE TOUCH wrote:

Did you go to Africa for ministry?

I love soccer! I blew my back out though so photography still gets me in the action!

I've thought about getting the Canon 100-300/4.5 for ~$300 to get me by. I have three big shoots this weekend and I was hoping to upgrade by then but that's a lot of money to throw down on a split second decision!

Africa ministry? Yes. I work as a leader for a youth camp, Faith Quest Uganda.

I plan to return in 2007, if God wills it.

peace.
johno~

Seefutlung

Bob Bell wrote:

I read your paragraph that you were referring to the 70-200 as the Dust Pumper, which is why I was questioning it. I can see the 100-400 being referred to that. I have seen the Bigma name before and after seeing Mike Lane use his with 2 stacked 1.4x TC's can see why

I kinda ran two thoughts together there ... I need not to keyboard when I'm at work.

Seefutlung

johno wrote:

Africa ministry? Yes. I work as a leader for a youth camp, Faith Quest Uganda.

I plan to return in 2007, if God wills it.

peace.
johno~

Good luck to ya ... Africa is a tough call.

THE TOUCH

Seefutlung wrote:

Bigma Range Test can be found here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/1158485

Seefutlung - Nice shots.

I like the range test as well - that's pretty shocking!

I thought you were referring to the 70-200 as the dust pumper but once you mentioned the 100-400 it all made perfect sense! That's pretty funny.

I've read some reviews and I'm pretty excited about this lens - even though I swore I'd never buy anything but Canon!

Thank you for all the info!

THE TOUCH

johno wrote:

Africa ministry? Yes. I work as a leader for a youth camp, Faith Quest Uganda.

I plan to return in 2007, if God wills it.

peace.
johno~

Do you have any info on the camp like a website? Thanks!

Seefutlung

Both the Pumper and the Bigma are very nice lenses. You won't go wrong regardless of your choice. For me IS as more of a parlor trick, as I tend to shoot action, I have very little use for it. Additionally, according to Photozone's MTF charts, IS comes at a price ... and that price is sharpness. Photozone tested the Canon 70-200 IS against the 70-200 non-IS and the non-IS was significantly sharper that the IS. The Pumper has the original IS ... which also makes me wonder if I am paying top dollar for the greatest value with the Pumper. So after rolling all this stuff around I ended up with the Bigma ... my first non-OEM lens. The 70-200L is absolutely wonderful. Don't leave home without it.