Lens Decision is killing me.

[JCalvert]

Ok Folks ( lens gurus ), WHAT would you buy next ?

I shoot mostly wilderness nature, some outdoor sports ( racing ), some birds and then people at markets and fairs, etc.

I own a 10D with a EF 17-40mm L and a 28-135mm IS ( I love them both ). I seem to be drawn to:

1) the EF 100-400mm L IS
2) or, the EF 20-200mm f/2.8 L

$$ are about the same so price doesn't matter and yes I understand they are both huge and weigh more than a sumo wrestler.

Really curious. :(

[Tapeman]

Do you mean 70-200? I haven't heard of a 20-200.

[CyberDyneSystems]

you mean 70-200mm.. ?

Since you have a lot of the 70-200mm range covered with the 28-135mm... if it were me I'd go straight for the longer lens,. the 100-400mm


..but I have an affinity for longer lenses... :roll:

[Belmondo]

you mean 70-200mm.. ?

Since you have a lot of the 70-200mm range covered with the 28-135mm... if it were me I'd go straight for the longer lens,. the 100-400mm


..but I have an affinity for longer lenses... :roll:

I also recommend the 100-400. The clincher was racing (auto, I assume). Generally, the best chance of getting good shots at most venues is with a long lens. Of course, the 70-200 with a 2X TC on it will also give you 400mm, but the quality will suffer somewhat, and you'll lose 40mm on the wide end when the TC is on the lens.

Tough decision. Good luck.

Thos.

[SoCal69]

Ditto on the 100-400 recommendation... since you seem to also shoot wildlife and birds, the longer reach will certainly help.

[defordphoto]

Racing, birds...Automatic 100-400.

[JCalvert]

Gee, never learned to type . Yes I mean 70-200mm.

jc

[KennyG]

100-400L without a doubt. One of the UK's most respected magazines compared zooms this month and their comment on the 100-400L was - "The image quality is excellent, the image stabilizer works well and the handling is superb". They rate it above all the others they tested.

Personally, it is my most used and loved lens.

[martcol]

Well that settles it for me too. I was almost persuaded on the 100-400 and now my mind's made up. I already have the 28-135 plus a Sigma 15-30 I wondered whether at first to go for 70-200 as that covers pretty much the range I most use (but then i don't have anything bigger that 135). Then I thought I could sell on the older stuff when I am ready to get the 100-400. But why bother?

I nearly have the money now.....

I can't wait!

Martin

[JCalvert]

KennyG and all others using the 100-400mm. This lens is sometimes described as a "dust sucker" and that could be true given its push-pull design.

Do you find this to be a real problem?

How can it be avoided?

If it gets dust inside, I suspect Canon has to disassemble and clean which sounds expensive.

Thanks
jc

[Whaler]

I'm in the same boat as Jcalvert. My cuurent lens are listed below. How about going with a "L" prime such as the 300 f/4. The 100 - 400 has got to be HUGE. Opinions please. 8)

[IanD]

I'm in the same boat as Jcalvert. My cuurent lens are listed below. How about going with a "L" prime such as the 300 f/4. The 100 - 400 has got to be HUGE. Opinions please. 8)
Whaler,
It is not all that big. Nothing a well fed person cannot handle. Hell even I have one.
When it is fully extended it can cause some panic in crowded places and you might be charged 2 entry fees to sporting events but I would think that most of the time one would be using the 100-400 outdoors away from the crowds.
8" when closed and 11" when fully extended. Add 3" for the sun shade. It is not tiny but wait until you use it. You will very quickly forget about size.
Pick up the phone and order one right now :!: :lol:

[SoCal69]

Pick up the phone and order one right now :!: :lol:

Operators are standing by! :D

[robertwgross]

It is not all that big. Nothing a well fed person cannot handle.

I have an even bigger one (lens, that is). It does fine when transported by the lens trailer. I consider it sort of like a crew-served weapon.

[Seriously] I've gone on any number of long hikes with it, and the monster lens generally spends most of its time curled up in a shoulder bag. The weight of it only slows me down a little when going up a steep hill. Birders mostly hike to one place and then sit still with the camera and long lens. I don't.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well that settles it for me too. I was almost persuaded on the 100-400 and now my mind's made up. I already have the 28-135 plus a Sigma 15-30 I wondered whether at first to go for 70-200 as that covers pretty much the range I most use (but then i don't have anything bigger that 135). Then I thought I could sell on the older stuff when I am ready to get the 100-400. But why bother?

I nearly have the money now.....

I can't wait!

Martin

Look at it this way,. the 70-200 would be a modest, incremental increase in focal length. :roll:

Well "incremental" is for sissies and boring people! :mrgreen:

Go for the Gusto!

Plus as said before you still have the overlap from 100 - 135mm in the two lenses.. so your not missing a thing!

You go back and fill in with the "fat" aperture lenses if the need comes up... but for outdoor work,. the 100-400mm will serve you well. :mrgreen:

[J. Cobble]

Just got the 100 - 400 last week. Got it from 17th street for 1299.00 Also got the 1.4 extender which I promptly dropped on a concrete sidewalk.. OUCH. Still works like a charm. The 100 400 is sweet. GET IT! I was struggling with the same question. Look at my post further down and check out the pic in my post from REMSports. Thats what settled it for me. :lol:

[Canuck]

I'm in the same boat as Jcalvert. My cuurent lens are listed below. How about going with a "L" prime such as the 300 f/4. The 100 - 400 has got to be HUGE. Opinions please. 8)
Whaler,
It is not all that big. Nothing a well fed person cannot handle. Hell even I have one.
When it is fully extended it can cause some panic in crowded places and you might be charged 2 entry fees to sporting events but I would think that most of the time one would be using the 100-400 outdoors away from the crowds.
8" when closed and 11" when fully extended. Add 3" for the sun shade. It is not tiny but wait until you use it. You will very quickly forget about size.
Pick up the phone and order one right now :!: :lol:

I feel the same way about the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX I have! Thankfully I have not been charged 2 admissions yet...fingers crossed and touch wood as the British say! :)

[RichardtheSane]

Well I've had my 100-400L for nearly a year now, and there is not a spec of dist in the optics at all. I find that I have to clean my sensor fairly frequently though, but if that is related to the 100-400, who knows.

Even if my regulat sensor clean is caused by the lens the quality of image it allows me to produce far outweighs the minor inconvenience of having to clean my sensor from time to time.

I love this lens!!!!

[defordphoto]

This lens is sometimes described as a "dust sucker" and that could be true given its push-pull design.

Do you find this to be a real problem?


That is such a wive's tale. I have had mine for a year (also) and have ZERO dust in mine.

[Belmondo]

I periodly shake the dust out of my 100-400L by dropping it on the ground, typically a distance of about two feet (exactly the height of the door sill on my pickup truck).

I'm pleased to report that the system works. I have no dust. Unfortunately I can no longer manually focus the lens. Tomorrow morning, Mrs. Belmondo and I are driving the 2 1/2 hours to the Canon repair center to drop it off. :oops: :oops: :( :( :lol: :lol:

[Whaler]

Mrs. Belmondo is a very lucky woman. . . . make sure she chants "I am not worthy" 3 times as you pull into the Canon parking lot. :lol:

[KennyG]

KennyG and all others using the 100-400mm. This lens is sometimes described as a "dust sucker" and that could be true given its push-pull design.

This is an urban myth. I use and abuse my 100-400L, sometimes in terrible conditions with dust flying everywhere from cars that end up in the gravel traps, or simply dust blown around race circuits in high winds. In maybe 15,000 shots with this lens I have not had a dust problem.

[martcol]

Hugely enjoyable discussion!

I am getting so excited about this lens... But that weight thingy is scaring me a bit. My woman is finding it hard enough as it is to keep up with me. Maybe I'll treat her to some extra padding in the shoulder straps.

Martin

[merlyn9]

Shooting wildlife & NASCAR races myself... GET THE 100-400 IS ...Hands Down!

After using a 28-300 for 2 months... I am expecting MY NEW 100-400 in about 7 hours! I am so excited I have not been able to sleep... I have 3 batteries charged, 3 CF cards empty & ready..... :lol:

I have 5 days to play with it until I leave for a 4-day weekend in Yosemite.
Talladega is only 2 months away.....

Somebody get me an IV drip...

[Whaler]

martcol,

NEVER :!: I REPEAT :!: NEVER :!: Take more gear than your woman/wife can carry. :lol:

[Ferdinand]

My apologies for bumping this back up. However, I do have a few questions about this 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens.

I know this comparison has been hack to death many times but its tough to make a decision when you are investing a lot of money on a lens.

Is this 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens fast enough for taking sports/racing/action shots during the night in a typical studium that has reasonably good lighting? I know my cheap 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III doesn't at a recent softball game I went to but maybe that is because its a highschool game at a local studium and maybe it doesn't have good enough lighting?

Or would going to a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with a 2X TC be much better for me? I know we all know there will be some image degradation. I have seen test done by Belmondo/Tom. And the different doesn't seem to be that great and that I am sure some post processing would bring it up to par. And went I don't need to shoot at 400mm I have a 70-200mm lens with superb optical quality.

I would very much appreciate your opinions, bare in mind I would like to leave the Primes out of this and also that I will be doing a lot of USM. With these in mind, would a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with a 2X TC be a better choice for me than a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.

Regards,
Ferdinand

[Mills]

Going on a year with mine. No dust problems.

[mcdcwain]

I sold mine due to the dust problem. No problem with my 300f4, it's easier to handle and has a built in lens hood, not to mention macro.

I had to have mine cleaned when the dust go so bad, it came back from canon with new, cleaner dust.

I think this lens along with a digital camera make good partners.

This is from my exprerience, your dust may vary.

Mike