Canon Digital Telephoto Lens Dilemma

[mdr]

I currently have a Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM telephoto zoom, which I always use at the 300mm end. On my 20D, this gives me a focal length of 480mm at f5.6.

I want to upgrade to better quality optics as well as having the ability to shoot wildlife at longer focal lengths. Therefore, I'm considering L lenses with the 1.4x and/or 2x EF II converter.

The 300mm f2.8 L and longer L lenses are out of my price range. My wife won't allow me to spend more on a lens than a car http://www.scottish-photographic-federation.org/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_twisted.gif These are also way too big/heavy for daytrips in the Highlands.

Based on optical quality, focal length and size/weight, the two lenses I'm considering are the 200mm f2.8 L and the larger, heavier, dearer 300mm f4 L (either non-IS or even dearer IS version).

First question is, does the 200mm f2.8 L I and or II work with the 1.4x and 2x EF I and/or II converters, as both Canon and the web provide contradicting info on this :confused: .

Second question is, what is the difference in quality of using the 200mm with the 2x EF II converter (equivalent to 640mm at f5.6 on my 20D) and the 300mm with the 1.4x EF II converter (equivalent to 672mm at f5.6 on my 20D)?

Is the optical quality of the 300mm non-IS version better than the IS version, as some reviews seem to suggest?

Are there any other lenses/converters I should be considering?

Bear in mind that I have a 20D so edge sharpness for full frame cameras does not affect the image on the 20D's cropped sensor.

[cc10d]

mdr,
I use the Ls you asked about. I also enjoy nature photography. So here is a thought. If you are allways at the end of your 75-300 you may find the 200 a bit short, even with the 1.4x, I would not buy the 2x, if you are looking for the best results, avoid it.. The 300 - 2.8 is an awsume lens and the 1.4 works great on it. But it is big and HEAVY. The 300 -4.0 is smaller and lighter and a good lens, 1.4 ok on it. But I find that the most versatile and easier to use lens to be the 100-400 L IS, without extenders. Good results from handheld hiking about use. Don't have to carry tripod, save the weight workouts for the gym, etc. I love the 200-2.8 for closer work where I have a good idea I will not need to change to longer lens quickly. Not sure what I think of 1.4 on it. I have not tryed it, I had the longer lenses befor I got it. The 400 of the 100-400 will also give you the same reach and light as the 2x on the 200, and I am confident the 100-400 without extender will give much better results than using the 2x extender on the 200. Chuck

[CyberDyneSystems]

I agree with Chuck re; his assesment of the 100-400mm for a solution.

Otherwise I'd be looking only at the 300mm f/4. It works very well with the 1.4X T-con.

the 200mm f/2.8 is going to be too short for you unless you have a T-con,. and the 2X is just not a good way to go.

FYI,. the older 200mm f/2.8L DOES NOT work with T-cons. (u nless my memory is carp)

I'd narrow your choices to 100-400mm for absolute flexibility,. or 300mm f/4 IS for prime quality at 300mm and 420mm with 1.4X T-con.

[KennyG]

I agree with CDS and Chuck for the 100-400L. Oh, and don't go by Canon UK's website. A lot of the lenses on there are obsolete and new ones missing. Check pro resellers like Warehouse Express for what is current. You can't get a new 300 F4L without IS for example, and, heavens above, Canon UK show the 200 1.8L as a current model - if only it were.

[Longwatcher]

Add my vote for 100-400. You get a more flexable lens with image stabilization and although you lose auto focus, adding the 1.4x extender will still give you good images and further extend your range over a 300mm lens.

Adding the 2x will noticeably degrade the images except in all but the brightest light. I have both extenders and have been known to use them together on the 100-400, but only at high noon on a clear day. At that point the pictures don't look great, but you get more detail then cropping to the same view. Also the EXIF data gets confused as to focal length.


I will also put it this way.
From 301-400 the 100-400 will beat a prime 300 with a 1.4x, from 400-420 the 300 w/1.4 would win and beyond 420, you would have to get the 100-400 w/a 1.4x anyway.

[robertwgross]

I'll agree also. My 100-400 L lens is pretty good for wildlife. I can walk around with it, alone, on my camera. Then I can slap on a single 1.4x teleconverter, and that works. When I slap on two teleconverters, that that is the limit of practicality, but keep back to one if possible. Also note that you will likely slip past the autofocus aperture limit, so learn to manually focus if you use teleconverters.

The type of wildlife you go after will dictate the focal lengths you need. I'm guessing that you don't have too many African elephants in Scotland. I'm guessing you go after small mammals or birds.

---Bob Gross---

[Jon]

I'll also cast a vote for the 100-400. If you're bumping into the long end of the 75-300, it'll give you room to play with. Adding on the 1.4x TC will push you further out, even though you lose autofocus. The fixed lenses won't give you the flexibility of the 100-400, and the 200, even with a 2x TC will only just match the 100-400 for reach and aperture. The 300 with 1.4x will be a bit longer than the 100-400 without, but still at an f/5.6 aperture.

[robertwgross]

One more thing about the 100-400 L lens. This is just about the biggest/longest lens that is practical for bird photos. A few go after a 500mm, and a 600mm is impractically expensive for us mere mortals.

If you buy a 600mm lens, then you have to go buy a wheelbarrow to transport it. Or maybe a small truck.

---Bob Gross---

[Phil Hall]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400. I would recommend the 100-400 because of its greater range. You can also add the 1.4X converter to increase it even more.

[mdr]

Many thanks to all for their replies. They have been very useful, particularly comparisions with/without TC's. Changed my mind and will go for the 100-400mm L :cool: .

Cheers,

Marc.