My head is spinning (yet another lens question)

[brainwerks]

Greetings everyone,

I recently upgraded from a Canon S40 to a Canon Digital Rebel. I really missed having a SLR camera ever since I gave my Pentax K1000 to my sister. She was an art major and at the time was taking a lot of photography classes. She couldn't afford a SLR so big brother had to step in. :roll:

I currently have the 28-135mm IS lens and I have found out two things about it. I like it for its price, and I like having IS. That being said, I am constantly bumping up against the telephoto end of the camera. I was also always bumping up against the 200mm on my Pentax.

I have done much reading on this forum and I value reading every post that discusses the pros and cons of Canon L glass and its' cheaper siblings. So, I figured I should get off my butt, stop lurking and post my question!

I am looking for something that will reach at least 200mm with a preference for more. Several lenses here have been reviewed that I am considering. The 70-200 F4L, the 70-200 F2.8L (and IS version) and the 100-400 IS L. I do not shoot much with a tripod as I am constantly on the move so, most of my shots will be handheld. I want to purchase the best lens for my money without breaking the bank. Something keeps telling me the 70-200 f4 would be the best bet but I love the IS feature on my 28-135. Would I be better off with saving for the 100-400 IS L?

How hard is it to carry the 100-400 around on say a trip to the park? A vacation with my 28-135 and the 100-400?

Thanks for all your help!

[stuartf287]

Considering the 1.6 crop factor, the lens you have is equivalent to a 44-216 on your old Pentax. So you already are going a bit beyond 200 with your current set-up.

I don't have the 100-400, but I do have the 28-135IS as well as a 70-200 F2.8 IS and a Bigma (50-500). Neither of the latter is a "walk around the park" lens for me. They are both so big and attention-getting that I have real problems using them to take the kinds of candid pictures I like. When I point either of these monsters in someone's direction my subjects tend to sidle, or even dive, out of the way. These huge, "professional" looking lenses seem to require a method of handling or approach which has eluded me so far. Using them with inanimate subjects is easy enough, but for candid shots of people I have found that I am better off with the 28-135 IS or even a 50mm F1.8.

Judging by my 70-200, the Canon lenses you are considering are wonderful -- sharp, contrasty, great color, fast-focusing, etc. But the answer to your question depends a lot on the kinds of photos you want to take and, even more, the kind of photographer you are. Not that I would in any way compare myself to him, but Cartier-Bresson took most of his shots with a normal fixed-focus lens on a Leica rangefinder. Think what you and I should be able to do with our 44-216 IS lenses!

[RichardtheSane]

I use my 100-400L for the majority of my photography. I did 3 hours handheld work on Thursday and only had a bit of arm ache afterwards.
It is a bulky lens, and you would want to think about getting the grip for the 300D.

I agree about the candids though, point that at someone and the chances of them not noticing are very slim indeed! It does tend to draw attention!

[rick barclay]

For me, buying a lens is a subjective thing, since I don't make my living as a photographer. I also shoot with a DRebel and have the kit lens, the 50mm 1.8 II, and an EF 100-400mm, which I pretty much cherish because when
used right it takes spetacular shots of things far away. Most people here will tell you your choice of lens depends on what you want use it for.

I can tell you this about my telephoto zoom: if you're just going to take a
walk in the park (as I do), and you're in decent physical shape, then you
should have no problem lugging aroung a 100-400 for an hour or three. If you think it will be too much to carry, then try using a monopod, because holding that lens steady while shooting is quite difficult (for me, at least). I
haven't gone on any long uphill hikes with my lens yet, but if I do, I will not
forget to bring along my monopod, which I imagine makes a pretty good
walking stick, too. I also think the 100-400 gives you the most bang for you buck, but I suppose that's my prejudice showing.

Have fun with whatever you buy and let your heart
guide you in making your choice.

[kfong]

For vacation I take along a D60, the 28-135 IS and a 1.4X teleconverter. However only the Tamron teleconverter would fit this lens, but the combination is small, light and cheap. Sure now the long end is 189mm(X1.6 crop factor)/f7.84, I still have AF all the time outdoor, but that where the extra focal length is needed anyway. IS works as well, and the loss in sharpness due to the converter is minimal.

Ken

ps. Oh, I also take along a wide angle zoom for landscape and indoor, until some body comes up with a 0.6X converter/compressor. :roll:

[Olegis]

If you need the reach of the 400mm (=640mm on x1.6 body) - then you won't find better lens (in terms of price / performance ratio) than the 100-400. It all depend on your needs - maybe for your kind of photography the 70-200 f/4 will suit just fine, only you can tell that.
I myself am pretty happy with the 70-200 f/2.8L (non IS) that I bought used for about 800 $USD, you can see the samples here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/wildlife&page=all) and here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/natasha_&page=all). It isn't the most light lens in the world, but it's ok, even for a 3-4 hours shooting that I do sometimes.

[brainwerks]

Olegis - Thanks for the links. I would expect to use the telephoto for exactly those type of pictures.

I understand the crop factor for the 300D, I just figured more range is better :D

This lens would be used mostly at sporting events, outside walks, shots of ducks :lol: pretty standard stuff.

Maybe having the 70-200 f/4 would be the best. My local camera store is supposed to be getting one in so I can test it out.

kfong - thanks for the idea for the teleconverter. Maybe I could get the Tamron teleconverter and the 70-200 f/4. Then, I could use whatever fit the mood and shooting I was doing. I was looking at the canon teleconverters but they won't work on my 28-135 :(

So, it looks like maybe the 70-200 f/4 is on the list along with a teleconverter. Oh yeah, and the 17-40 L that I want!

Anyone else using the Tamron teleconverters?

[Olegis]

If you want wide angle lens, maybe you should look into the 15-30 from Sigma, a friend of mine has it and it produces wonderful results at 15 mm (=24mm on 10D). The 17-40 is "only" 27mm - may not be wide enough ...
About the tepephoto lens - the 70-200 f/4 is hard to beat in terms of optical quality, build quality and of coarse price (about 550 $USD at B&H). If you want 2.8 and don't have $1000 to spend, so the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO HSM (http://www.deltainternational.com/store/Item_SGL70%2D200HC.htm) may be an option for you as it's very capable lens from what I see in the reviews ...
Decisions, decisions ... :roll:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Keep in mind the 100-400mm is LIGHTER than the 70-200mm IS...

In this case I'd go straight to 100-400mm... you keep the IS.. and you only overlap from 100-135mm with your two lenses.

Based on what you describe.. I don't think 200mm will be "enough" to satisfy your telephoto desires :)

The only other option I can think of is the excellent Sigma 100-300mm f/4.

This is a fantastic lens.. priced lower than most of your other options,. still heavy, but the f/4 is handy at 300mm.. and with a 1.4X you can have a very high quality 140-420mm alternative @ f/5.6

[karusel]

CDS, would you personally prefer the 100-300 Sigma over 100-400 Canon? Even if it didn't have IS?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Nope!


It's just a lot cheaper.. and there may be times when the faster aperture would be handy. It is a good lens and worthy of consideration for many.'

But no personally.. I'd rather own the 100-400mm. I want the 400mm reach.. and IS is nice and the Canon just makes great pics!

[J. Cobble]

Ive got the 100-400 and I can absolutely recommend it. So its heavy, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it! :lol:

[J. Cobble]

By the way, this was shot with the 100-400 on a DRebel. Worth the weight and the money.


http://gallery.bytephoto.com/data/3108/53CRW_2141x.jpg

[martcol]

I'll tell you what I did....

I had the 28-135 IS as my main lens for everything for a year. I also had the 50 1.8 and a Sigma 15-30. I am afraid that I hardly ever changed lenses because frankly, I was terrified of dust.

Anyhow, I have been thinking long and hard and decided to get the 100-400 which would extend my range and give me what I seemed to miss most. It's funny how I seem to be able to make do without wide but always wish for more tele.

Then, I came into a heap of money unexpectedly and bought the three L zooms 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400. So, I have the three now and have had the chance to play. So with the experience I would have stuck with the 28-135 and got the 100-400 first, then the 70-200 f2.8 (which is utterly amazing) and finally the 24-70. If I had known how wonderful l glass is to use I wouldn't have waited so long!

Martin