need some help with my lens setup (with poll)

[blonde]

Hey guys,

well, the search for the perfect setup continues for me. i just sold my 100-400L and i am in need of a new setup. the reason i sold the 100-400 is because i needed something a bit more versitile in low light and i also wasn't a big fan of the push-pull zoom. my original plan was to use this money and buy the 70-200 IS and than later on add a long tele for wildlife. however, i started thinking and came up with quite a few alternativs and i need your help choosing the right one.

thanks

Snir

[Dchemist]

Hi Blonde, your title mentions a poll but there is not one in the message...

[blonde]

oh man, i had the entire poll setup for some reason, it is not here :( should i start a new thread with the poll?

[blonde]

well, my poll is done for so here are the options:

1) buy the canon 70-200 IS now and add the 300 IS later +tcon

2) buy sigma 70-200 2.8 and 300 f4 IS+ tcon now

3) buy canon 70-200 non IS now and 300f4 +tcon next month

4) canon 70-200 IS now and add the 400 5.6 later +tcon

5) buy sigma 70-200 2.8 and 400 5.6+ tcon now

6) canon 70-200 non IS now and 400 5.6 +tcon next month

7) other (please specifiy)

[Billginthekeys]

my vote is for 1 or 3. pereferably 1. ohh then you can mail me that 100-400 since u wont need it anymore.. right.... no im not expecting you to buy that. wish i could afford one of those lenses, much less all three.

[blonde]

haha, i no longer have the 100-400. it was shipped out today to the lucky buyer.

any more opinions?

[jjonsalt]

#6

[blonde]

if you can also give some resoning to your choice that would be great. i have to say though, this lens setup is not easy at all...

[chancellor]

I would choose option number 1.

[blonde]

so far i am too but it is alot of money and i want to make sure i am doing the right things,

[In2Photos]

Well If you really want the low light tele capability then you could wait even longer and spring for the 400 2.8.:lol: Really though, where do you need the low light capabilities? At what focal length?

[blonde]

Well If you really want the low light tele capability then you could wait even longer and spring for the 400 2.8.:lol: Really though, where do you need the low light capabilities? At what focal length?

i don't need low light in the tele. i do however want to have a lens that can be used for indoors sports such as motocross and carts. that is the reason why i need a fast 70-200...

[In2Photos]

Wow, that makes it tougher then. Do you think you will need the 70-120 range? If not maybe consider the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with tcon for low light and tele needs in one. Otherwise, my vote is for #3. I don't have any experience with IS but it seems like you will be stopping action so IS is less of a concern and the 300 f/4 plus t-con is more versatile than the 400 5.6.

[blonde]

i was thinking about that sigma but i decided against it because it is VERY heavy and i will be forced to use a tripod all the time which i don't like doing. as for the IS, i am just scarred that i will buy the non -IS version and than kick myself for not getting it....

[In2Photos]

i was thinking about that sigma but i decided against it because it is VERY heavy and i will be forced to use a tripod all the time which i don't like doing. as for the IS, i am just scarred that i will buy the non -IS version and than kick myself for not getting it....

OK, then I say #7. 70-200 IS now ans 300 f/4 plus tcon later.

[blonde]

yeah, i think that this is the route i will be going with, too bad i only get so few replies to my threads. i would have love to hear more from people who used the above lenses.

[blonde]

how about this option:

buy the canon 70-200 Non - IS with 1.4x tcon now. next month buy the 300 f4 IS and than add the 85 1.8 for indoor real low light shots. that way i will have the 85 for night or indoor shots, the 70-200 for sports and the 300 + tcon for birds and animals.

all of this should still cost me less than the 70-200 IS and 300 IS

[In2Photos]

how about this option:

buy the canon 70-200 Non - IS with 1.4x tcon now. next month buy the 300 f4 IS and than add the 85 1.8 for indoor real low light shots. that way i will have the 85 for night or indoor shots, the 70-200 for sports and the 300 + tcon for birds and animals.

all of this should still cost me less than the 70-200 IS and 300 IS

That sounds pretty good to me. Would give you a lot of flexibility and the 85 for indoor stuff is supposed to be a great lens.

[blonde]

ok, i found a 70-200 Non- IS for sale so if you have any last advice, please say it now.

thanks

[In2Photos]

ok, i found a 70-200 Non- IS for sale so if you have any last advice, please say it now.

thanks

Get it if it is a good deal.;)

[Mike K]

I own option 6 in your list. the 70-200 IS with a 1.4x goes to 280mm. the 400 f5.6 starts there and goes to 560mm with the 1.4x (I have a 1DII so f8 AF is not a problem). If I were a serious birder I would perhaps sell the 400 5.6 and get a 300 f4 IS and 500 f/4 IS.
Mike K

[blonde]

i am not a serious birder by any means. i enjoy going on weekend trips and i do enjoy taking pics of birds and birds in flight. i almost never see or take photos of the small birds and i do feel like 400mm should be enough for me (i had the 100-400) and it was enough.