One lens - Which one ?

[Panza]

I currently have EF 50mm 1.4 and EF 100-300 4.5-5.6. I want something longer and with better sharpness. I only want to (and can afford) to buy one lens.

I want a minimum of 400mm and I have considered the following:

EF 400mm 5.6L
EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS
EF 70-200mm f2.8 L with a 2X extender.

Will probably have the 2X with all of those lenses.

Will consider other good ideas too..

Thanks!

[mrchips]

If it were my choice I would go with the 100-400 IS L (as I have) The 70-200 L is a great lens but if you need 200 than it is a 140-400 5.6 and you ahve added more layers of glass. It is also more expensive in its IS version than the 100-400 is and by adding the 2x II teleconverter is a 2,000 + combo.

Unless you need 400+ mm all the time than the 400 Prime is not your answer. If on the other hand you are doing bird or animal photography than that might be the one. Until the day you are too close to the subject and a zoom would have taken the pic and a lens change means loosing the pic.

Just my thoughts
Denny

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Those are good lenses. I own the 70-200 and the 100-400. Although I don't own the converters myself, most of the reviews I have read suggest that the 2x will degrade image quality noticeably, whereas the 1.4 will not.

You do say that you'd must have a minimum of 400m, if that is absolute then I'm with Denny - go with the 100-400, but get the 1.4x instead of the 2x.

However, the 70-200 + 1.4x would give you a faster set-up and better glass (just :) ).

Regards,

[Panza]

It seems like the 100-400 IS is the best choice. As I already had a feeling of after reading a bit on the net.

I have two follow-up questions:

Why will the 2X extender degrade image quality noticeaby and not the 1.4X ?

I haven't found any comparisons on the net between the 100-300 I have and the 100-400 IS. How much of an improvement in image quality will it do ? In terms of none, a little, a good deal or a lot ?

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Panza wrote:
I have two follow-up questions:

Why will the 2X extender degrade image quality noticeaby and not the 1.4X ?

Can't say from personal experience, but everything I have read would suggest "yes". That doesn't mean necessarily don't buy it, but I reckon it's best to start with the 1.4x and add the 2x later.

I haven't found any comparisons on the net between the 100-300 I have and the 100-400 IS. How much of an improvement in image quality will it do ? In terms of none, a little, a good deal or a lot ?

If you mean the 100-300 with IS, I used to own this lens, but it doesn't do very well with the D30. I part-exchanged for the 100-400. The difference between the two is chalk and cheese. The 100-400 was my first L lens, I was just amazed at the image quality, the first time I looked at pictures I took with it.

Regards,

[Panza]

I meant the 100-300 4.5-5.6 withouth IS. But I guess that is no better than the 100-300 with IS..

I know what i'll get then.

[Rudi]

Panza wrote:
I haven't found any comparisons on the net between the 100-300 I have and the 100-400 IS. How much of an improvement in image quality will it do ? In terms of none, a little, a good deal or a lot ?

Somewhere between a good deal and a LOT! :D

You should see improvement in all your images, not so apparent in some, and absolutely astounding in others, depending on the subject and a lot of other factors. The 100-400 is a great lens! It will not be the limiting factor, such as the 100-300 can be in some circumstances.

Keep the 100-300 for when you want to travel really light, but don't want to give up on the tele...

[Panza]

Thanks for that info rudi! Sounds very good to me. off course it would have been nice to have a lot of primes but with a limited budget a zoom will do just fine I think. Especially since I'm just an amateur.

[Rudi]

Panza,

a zoom will do you just fine, especially a zoom like the 100-400 L IS! It is a LOT better than your 100-300, so enjoy it.

Even the lowly 75-300 non-USM can take a good picture. I took this photo with just this lens, handheld. Because that's all I had at the time, I was happy with the result (and it's not TOO shabby, you have to admit... :))

http://www.users.bigpond.com/ruda/0001/crw_1700_std.jpg

Good luck and enjoy your 100-400 L IS. Don't forget to post some photos! :D

[Phil Hall]

Panza wrote:
I currently have EF 50mm 1.4 and EF 100-300 4.5-5.6. I want something longer and with better sharpness. I only want to (and can afford) to buy one lens.

I want a minimum of 400mm and I have considered the following:

EF 400mm 5.6L
EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS
EF 70-200mm f2.8 L with a 2X extender.

Will probably have the 2X with all of those lenses.

Will consider other good ideas too..

Thanks!


I thought about getting the 100-300 but a friend convinced me to go with the 70-200 IS L and the 2x mk II extender. I shoot mostly wildlife, birds and cowboys. The mk II extender is a lot better than the old 2x extender. It is much better than enlarging the picture by 2x. The IS makes a tremendous difference and I rarely use a tripod. I am thinking about the 100-400 IS with the 2x as I still need to get closer to some subjects. The only other long lense I have tried with the D30 is a Tamron 28-300, which sucks even without an extender.
Hope it works out for you.

Phil Hall
Santa Ynez CA

[Harlod]

If you are looking for sharp lenses and are willing to use extenders, how about a couple of primes? For the cost of the 70-200 IS you could get a 135 f/2 and a used 300 f/4 non IS.

[Panza]

harlod wrote:
If you are looking for sharp lenses and are willing to use extenders, how about a couple of primes? For the cost of the 70-200 IS you could get a 135 f/2 and a used 300 f/4 non IS.

Might be a good idea but i think i'd rather have the 100-400 IS because of the IS. when I said primes I meant L-series primes. Besides as Rudi said :


...a zoom will do you just fine, especially a zoom like the 100-400 L IS! It is a LOT better than your 100-300, so enjoy it. .

I don't think I need more than a lot better...lol.. At times I have been quite happy with the 100-300 but alas it's not exactly what I want.

[Phil Hall]

Check out the lense test with the 2x converter

http://aboutdigicam.com/forum/

[Panza]

Phil Hall wrote:
Check out the lense test with the 2x converter

http://aboutdigicam.com/forum/


Checked it out, direct link:

http://aboutdigicam.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=147&highlight=teleconverter

Can't say I was impressed by the quality, but the MK2 2X is said to be quite a bit better than the MK1, and the 1.4X giving even less of a quality loss. Still didn't like it though.

[Pekka]

Panza wrote:
Can't say I was impressed by the quality, but the MK2 2X is said to be quite a bit better than the MK1, and the 1.4X giving even less of a quality loss. Still didn't like it though.

1.4X MKII is really good quality lens. I use it more and more with my 70-200. Even if you throw 500D on top of it the image quality is astounding.