70-200/4 vs. 28-135 magnification

[LiquidMantis]

I'm thinking about picking up the 70-200/4 L but I'm not sure if I'm going to be happy with the magnification increase over my 28-135. Are there any comparisons between the two (or similar lengths) showing the difference on a 10D? I can't help but wonder if I should hold out for the 100-400 instead.

[LiquidMantis]

I found this great page (http://www.camerahobby.com/Photo-Magnification.htm). Not a direct comparison between the two, but of 35mm vs. a 1.5x crop digital at a number of focal lengths. It's a great "at a glance" index of what a few millimeters will do for you.

[Belmondo]

I found this great page (http://www.camerahobby.com/Photo-Magnification.htm). Not a direct comparison between the two, but of 35mm vs. a 1.5x crop digital at a number of focal lengths. It's a great "at a glance" index of what a few millimeters will do for you.

That is a useful site. Of course, the crop factor in the 10D/Rebel is 1.6X, not 1.5X, so if the pictures are accurate, the effect will be even more pronounced with the Canon cameras. The thing to keep in mind is that it really affects the wide end only as far as being a perceived negative. In other words, a 17-40L lens is giving the wide angle performance of a 27mm lens…..to get the same field of vision as a full sensor camera would require an 11mm lens, and that would be relatively expensive compared to the 27mm lens if such a thing existed.

Between the two lenses you’re comparing, the 70-200 can be used with the Canon extenders, albeit at the cost of one or two f/stops depending on which extender you use. The 1.4X extender turns your 70-200 f/4L into a 98-280 f/5.6, and the 2X will turn it into a 140-400 f/8. If you can live with the small effective aperture, then you’re in good shape. The Canon extenders will not work with the 28-135, although I understand there are third-party extenders that will. I would be leery of them for optical performance, however.

I have both the f/4 and f/2.8 IS version of the Canon 70-200 lens. Once I got over the ‘WOW factor’ of the larger lens, I found myself going for the f/4 more often just for the ease of handling and convenience. I’ve done a little testing with the extender, and found it to give very adequate performance.

[LiquidMantis]

I have both the f/4 and f/2.8 IS version of the Canon 70-200 lens. Once I got over the ‘WOW factor’ of the larger lens, I found myself going for the f/4 more often just for the ease of handling and convenience.

That was my thought. While admittedly I lust after the 2.8 IS, for what I'm doing now the f/4 will be fine. Once I see how I like that range and have enough experience to justify it I may pick up the big brother. Currently my proposed lens lineup is:
50/1.4 (have)
28-135/3.5-4.6 (have)
70-200/4 L (probably next week)
1.4x tele (late March)
Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 (Spring)
100-400/4.5-5.6 (Fall)

I figure that will give me good coverage with good glass and at a spaced interval so that I can learn to use each lens well. I may throw a couple more primes in there to get some affordable faster glasses at different lengths.