Best Way to get reach

jdryan3jdryan3 Registered Users Posts: 1,353 Major grins
edited October 19, 2007 in Cameras
I posted a few weeks ago a thread for info on the 400 DO. I have a 5D and want to get to at least 400 at f/4. The best I can do now is 200 f/2.8 x1.4.

Liquidair suggested getting the 40D and the 100-400, forget the 400 DO f/4.

That got me thinking of getting the 300 f/2.8 and the 40D for times I want reach. Then I have a 2nd body, 480 (300x1.6) @ f/2.8, and 672 f/4 (300x1.6x1.4). Plus a faster frame rate for sports than my 5D. All for the same $5200 I was going to spend on the DO. There is only a modest weight/size difference between the lens, but I would have the weight and bulk of the 2nd body when hiking/biking.

Obviously FOV is not an issue since I have the 5D, but are there any other pros/cons I have to consider? :dunno
"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
-Fleetwood Mac

Comments

  • Aaron JorsAaron Jors Registered Users Posts: 470 Major grins
    edited October 18, 2007
    If I was in your position I would go with option #2. It gets you a second body and from what I've heard the 300 f2.8 is an excellent lens. You might also want to consider looking at the 300 f/4 and 400 5.6 as I those are great lenses as well that would work well with a 40D.
    www.aaroncjors.com
  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited October 19, 2007
    Unless you NEED low light capabilities, the 40D with the 300L IS f/4 and the 1.4 tc is the way to go. You will not be dissappointed. I use this combo at f/6.3 with good results.

    I have the 400 DO and it is very nice...but a tad heavy...the 300 2.8 is bigger and heavier with less reach.

    Tough decision...I know.
  • sirsloopsirsloop Registered Users Posts: 866 Major grins
    edited October 19, 2007
    The 300/2.8 and 400DO are twice the weight and much larger than the 300/4LIS. Once you start talking 300/2.8 or 400/4DO you've entered a different leauge of lenses. You're really giving yourself the ability to get out to 600mm if you go with the 300/2.8. I've never used the 400 DO so I can't really comment...but with the small relative price different I think there's little reason other than size/weight to use it over the 400/2.8. Yes, its a monster! :D The cheapest option by far would be a 300/4L+1.4x. If you have more budget and dont mind a larger lens... the 300/2.8L is pretty slick and will get you to 600 with a 2x. What's gonna be at the other end of the lens? Sports...wildlife?
    http://www.tallmanphoto.com
Sign In or Register to comment.