Help me decide which telephoto to buy.

mackidbrendan

ok so ive been looking to upgrade my 75-300 f/4.5 for a while now and i have an idea of what i want. but when i thnk about theres so many ways to achieve the same distance. can you please tell which option i hould go with and why its the best.

Option 1:
Canon 70-200 f/4L
Canon 400 f/5.6L

Option 2:
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L
Canon 2.0x extender

Option 3:
Canon 70-200 f/4L
Canon 300mm f/4L IS
Canon 1.4 extender

Option 4:
can you suggest a better combination?

Thanks :clap

Richard

You might want to consider the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS as well. Just trying to make it even harder.

OK, seriously...what do you shoot? You'll get better advice if we understand the needs.

Regards

DavidTO

I personally think that the 70-200 f4L is one of the best deals on Canon L glass there is. Fine optics. You miss out on the extra stop of it's bigger cousin, but you also avoid the weight that comes with it.

I don't shoot longer than that, so I'm no help on the others. The 400 5.6 is well-liked. Also, Kenko makes a nice set of extenders, at a big savings.

mackidbrendan

Richard wrote:

You might want to consider the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS as well. Just trying to make it even harder.

OK, seriously...what do you shoot? You'll get better advice if we understand the needs.

Regards

i ve thought about it but i dont like the aspect of the push pull, an if i get it then i need something from 75-100, cus i would like to be covered all the way up.

right now i have a XTi and a 75-300 4.5. but this summer i will be working, like everyday so i can get something along the line of this: 40D, canon 17-40L, tamron 28-75 2.8, canon 50 1.4, Stigma 8mm fish, and 580ex, and then the large glass. i have around a 6000 budget.

id like to shoot nature and sports.
right now im kinda leaning towards a 70-200 2.8 non is, 300mm f/4 and 1.4x

mackidbrendan

DavidTO wrote:

I personally think that the 70-200 f4L is one of the best deals on Canon L glass there is. Fine optics. You miss out on the extra stop of it's bigger cousin, but you also avoid the weight that comes with it.

I don't shoot longer than that, so I'm no help on the others. The 400 5.6 is well-liked. Also, Kenko makes a nice set of extenders, at a big savings.

ya thats what i was thinking but i have a higher budget now so i thnk id get the 2.8
ive thought about the 400, but its rather large for me, that why i was thing of a 300 with 1.4 then i can get the 400 at 5.6 and it wont be as large. plus i would have coverage at 300 aswell. :d

Photoskipper

I have the exact Option 2 set up for my 5D. everything goes great. Just find the 2X with 70-200 F2.8 is a bit soft. I think 1.4X may be better.
Depends on how you want to use the telezoom. Anything beyond effective 400 mm needs tripod. If th e 40D with 70-200 F2.8 and 1.4X will give you max 450 mm at F4!! Yet you can enjoy the large aparture of the 2.8 and excellent portrait with th3 70 -200 F2.8.

Hamm

mackidbrendan wrote:

right now i have a XTi and a 75-300 4.5. but this summer i will be working, like everyday so i can get something along the line of this: 40D, canon 17-40L, tamron 28-75 2.8, canon 50 1.4, Stigma 8mm fish, and 580ex, and then the large glass. i have around a 6000 budget.

Ooh, good list. I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 as my walk-around lens and it's a nice sharp lens. But you can't go wrong with L glass. I have the 70-200 f/2.8L and I use it almost as much as the Tamron. I originally bought the 70-200 f/4L, which is a great lens and a really good deal, but I was taking sports shots inside gyms and quickly started regretting not having the extra stop. Anytime I get in low light I am quite glad my lenses are f/2.8. (I also have the 16-35 f/2.8L II which I preferred over the 17-40.)

mackidbrendan

Photoskipper wrote:

If th e 40D with 70-200 F2.8 and 1.4X will give you max 450 mm at F4!! Yet you can enjoy the large aparture of the 2.8 and excellent portrait with th3 70 -200 F2.8.

sorry i dont think i understand? your saying that the 70-200 2.8 with 1.4 will give me 450mm at f/4?

Hamm

mackidbrendan wrote:

sorry i dont think i understand? your saying that the 70-200 2.8 with 1.4 will give me 450mm at f/4?

I'll review the maths: 200mm * 1.4 = 280mm. That's the teleconverter. Then you have a 1.6x crop factor from the 40D, 280mm*1.6 =448mm, which is close enough to 450mm. So the total combination of lens/converter/camera is about equivalent to a 450mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera. If you're just comparing lenses, you'd use just the lens*teleconverter number.

The f/4 is due to losing a stop when you attach the teleconverter.

In any event, an equivalent 450mm lens is one looong lens. Get the tripod.

mackidbrendan

Hamm wrote:

I'll review the maths: 200mm * 1.4 = 280mm. That's the teleconverter. Then you have a 1.6x crop factor from the 40D, 280mm*1.6 =448mm, which is close enough to 450mm. So the total combination of lens/converter/camera is about equivalent to a 450mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera. If you're just comparing lenses, you'd use just the lens*teleconverter number.

The f/4 is due to losing a stop when you attach the teleconverter.

In any event, an equivalent 450mm lens is one looong lens. Get the tripod.

o yeaaa, i forgot the 40D was a 1.6. dam, thats pretty long! so that would make the 300mm with 1.4 like.....670mm on the 40D!!!!

TaDa

Just keep in mind that the crop is just that, a crop of the image. It's not going to change the focal length of the lens. So for wildlife shooting, it's not like the 40D will get you 1.6 times closer to the subject. The subject will be the same distance away as on a 5D, just that you will have less of the picture to look at, so it will 'look' magnified by 1.6.

Telecorder

Considered Sigma's New 150-500 OS/HSM?

mackidbrendan wrote:

ok so ive been looking to upgrade my 75-300 f/4.5 for a while now and i have an idea of what i want. but when i thnk about theres so many ways to achieve the same distance. can you please tell which option i hould go with and why its the best.

Option 1:
Canon 70-200 f/4L
Canon 400 f/5.6L

Option 2:
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L
Canon 2.0x extender

Option 3:
Canon 70-200 f/4L
Canon 300mm f/4L IS
Canon 1.4 extender

Option 4:
can you suggest a better combination?

Thanks

http://www.birdingworld.co.uk/Sigma%20Photos.htm

Scott_Quier

mackidbrendan wrote:

right now i have a XTi and a 75-300 4.5. but this summer i will be working, like everyday so i can get something along the line of this: 40D, canon 17-40L, tamron 28-75 2.8, canon 50 1.4, Stigma 8mm fish, and 580ex, and then the large glass. i have around a 6000 budget.

Consider replacing the 17-40 and the Tamron with a EF-S 17-55 and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS, since you're shooting sports).

There are pluses and minuses to every decision. I don't know much about the 17-40, but I do know the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. It's not heavy and isn't quite the tank build of a "L" but mine has served me quite well for the last couple of years (so far!). It's also a quite sharp piece of glass. I've read where people claim it's optics are "L" quality and my results bear that out. My copy is even unreasonably sharp at f/2.8 across the entire focal length range. Just something to think about.

Also, the Tamron (I have one), while being an f/2.8 it still tends to hunt a bit in low light situations - which is why I got the 17-55 as it doesn't hunt hardly at all - even in the cave (a huge room with deep chocolate brown painted wood floors and ceiling) I shot in last night. The Tammy would have died a horrible death, but the 17-55 handled it like it was nothing.

claudermilk

Option #3 is closest to where I plan to head. I already have the 70-200--the f2.8 version in my case. I plant to eventually get the 300/4L (IS or not) + TC.