another lens choice thread (long glass)

[transcend]

I have come into a bit of money recently, which means I will have my bills paid off (finally) inside the month. This means that it is once again time to go into debt in 2 months. :)

I currently own a 10d with a 50mm prime and 17-40L. I am obviously looking to go longer, and have been graciously loaned a 100-400 on a few outings now, which worked fantastic (well, it woudl have if I didn't suck). Anywho, it is now time for me to pick up some of my own glass.

Currently I am considering the following 70-200 f4, 70-200 2.8IS, 100-400 and finally the 400mm f5.6L.

Budgetary contraints are present, i wish to not go TOO deeply into debt again as the plan is to have it paid off in a month or 2. I will be shooting cycling and landscapes with the 17-40 mostly. Recently I have been getting heavily into nature photography, as I enjoy the trek's through the woods looking for animals that woudl prefer not to be seen. The 6am wake up calls aside, it is fun.

The longer glass will hence be used mostly for wildlife, and longer cycling shots. My first plan was the 70-200, but after using the 100-400 i am leaning towards it. I recently found out the 400 5.6 was dirt cheap (relatively speaking) and am wondering if it would be worth my while to eschew the 100-400 and pick up the 400 prime. I know I'd lose the zoom, as well as IS. It woudl however be slightly sharper at 400 but it doesn't seem like enough to bother. Basically I would save $500 and lose the flexibility.

As youc an tell by my rambling post, I have no clue what to so, and any and all suggestions are welcome (except maybe to go jump in a lake).

[robertwgross]

You might want to expand on your wildlife photography intent.

If you are shooting stuff close-by, then anything will work. The 100-400L gets a lot of high marks for flexibility, and the IS feature helps. As you start going after smaller birds at greater distances, you end up needing more than 400mm. I've been shooting a lot at 800mm lately (plus x1.6 factor), so I use a tripod almost universally.

Some of the birders use a prime 500mm or even maybe 600mm, but that is getting awfully serious.

---Bob Gross---

[transcend]

Most of the wildlife stuff will be handheld, no tripod. Lots of birds, deer whatever happens to be about. I won't be going much longer then 400 for now, do to both budget and portability. It will get a monopod at best.

The lack of IS and generally slow idea is what is worrying me about this lens, altho the $500 I would save could be put towards a 70-200 f4 for example. I would like to have something better at lower light, as we usually shoot door early in the morning, and my generally shakey hands have me wanting faster shutter speeds and IS. The lighter 400mm prime would help here as well.

The 70-200IS would be ideal, but I will want something longer for sure. At this point I will not be getting anything else for awhile, so I have to try to have it fill as many shoes as possible, so to speak.

Also looking at the 300L F4, whcih seems like a decent tradeoff as well if I can find one used. Everything below is in the hunt, even considering a 135 and a 300 prime + TC, If I can get them used, they are within budget and give me the range of speed, length and sharpness I am looking for.

70-200 2.8 IS
135L F2.0
300L F4 IS
400L F5.6
100-400L F4.5-5.6 IS

The last idea (and priciest) would be a 70-200 2.8IS with 1.4x TC, I am hoping not to spend this much (grad school bills), and will still be lacking at the long end of things.

I think I just need someone to make up my mind for me, at this point, I am still leaning towards the 100-400 as it seems like it is a very good middle of the line lens..I get IS, distance and slightly slower lens.

[Turbowolf]

I think I just need someone to make up my mind for me, at this point, I am still leaning towards the 100-400 as it seems like it is a very good middle of the line lens..I get IS, distance and slightly slower lens.

All the photo's on my website were done with the 100-400 IS USM. For an all around wildlife lens, it's my first choice. Sure I'd love the 500 or 600, but then if something pops up too close...like the foxes I have run across.

Bite the bullet, buy the 100 - 400, you'll be happy.

[transcend]

That is the idea right now probably, Turbo. Altho a 135 2.0 + 300 f4 + 1.4Tc has a certain ring to it...

[timmyquest]

Most of the wildlife stuff will be handheld, no tripod. Lots of birds, deer whatever happens to be about

I think the 100-400 or 400 f/5.6 are your only logical options then.

Most other glass is just too large/heavy.

That is unless you think you could get away with 300mm, which i can tell you from experience is frequently just a tad too short for birds and such. Possible, but kind of hard.

[transcend]

I think the 100-400 or 400 f/5.6 are your only logical options then.

Most other glass is just too large/heavy.

After talking to a few people, I think the 400 5.6 wouldn't be a great choice. The 300 f4 with a TC would give me the same speed, slightly longer reach, and then i can always pull off the TC to drop down to 300 as well. Oh boy, decisions.

[timmyquest]

After talking to a few people, I think the 400 5.6 wouldn't be a great choice. The 300 f4 with a TC would give me the same speed, slightly longer reach, and then i can always pull off the TC to drop down to 300 as well. Oh boy, decisions.

This is very true.

Your in the same shoes i think i'll find myself in about 3-4 months. Honestly though i think i'm just going to get the 100-400. The only reason i'd get something different is if it was longer, faster, and sharper. All the lenses that fit under that cat. are at least 5x out of my price range.

The 100-400 is plenty sharp, very versitile, and rather cheap considering what it does.

There is kind of a snobbish ahora about prime lenses. Somehow that if you only use primes then you and/or your gear is better. The truth is that primes will almost always out perform their zoom counterparts. But if no one can tell which lens you used, then what does it matter if you get the same subject in focus?

As i always say, in the end your going to be happy, so just go with what your "heart" tells ya and dont think twice about it once UPS comes'a'knockin.

[tim]

Some of the birders use a prime 500mm or even maybe 600mm, but that is getting awfully serious.

It's a bit over $7K for a 600mm lens!

[who me?]

Transcend,
Based on your description of the applications you would use the lens or lenses for, and especially the varied conditions you mentioned, I would recommend a zoom over a set of primes for the versatility. If you ended up doing the 135 and 300+TC, you would essentially be stuck at those prime focal lengths. I am not saying anything against the primes as they are great lenses but you made comments and implied that you seem to shoot more dynamic subjects (in both varying distance from you and in their activity) as well as your mention of mostly hand holding (maybe a moot point here). To me, your comments seem to fit right in there with a zoom (with the IS).
I just got a 20D, 17-40, 100-400 just before Christmas and I love both lenses for their versatility. To me, the versatility of the zooms FAR outweigh a slight loss in sharpness (that I will probably never see anyway) and the lack of need to constantly change prime lenses (from my past exeperience).
I was in your same position regarding lens choices too where I was thinking about the 70-200 f2.8 with and without the IS and a 1.4TC and I kept going back to the 100-400. The $$$ considerations were there too. I have a film 100-300 f4 and the 70-200 lenses with the 1.4 were essentially the same focal length and I wanted more reach on the far end. Thus, my choice of the 100-400. And so far in my short time using it, I am really happy with my choice barring the steep learning curve of the DSLR, autofocus and digital post processing over all my OLD film equipment.
I hoped some of my thoughts helped you. Good luck and enjoy whatever you get.

[IanD]

Trans,
Go for the 100-400 as your first purchase.. As many of the more experienced photogs here will tell you, it is a wicked sharp lens. The motor sport guys have proved that time and time again. Usually if someone doesn't find that lens to be sharp, it is operator error. The experienced nature shooter have also proved it's worth. The 300f/4 is not the fastest focusing lens in the world and with a 1.4 TC behind it, it will not set any focusing records.
Second purchase would be the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. In the woods shooting at Ste Anne and at Bromont the extra speed will come in handy, but the focal length might be a little too much for "in your face" action DHing. The 17-40 you already have will be a great "woods" lens. So will the 50 f/1.8.
Third purchase would be the 1.4TC (Canon) This behind the 70-200 is an awsome combo and very very sharp. I've got a ton of "justabird" images captured with this setup.
Fourth purchase (if the cash and CC will allow it or your GF doesn't make you move out :) )the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime. This is considered by some of the best bird shooters in the world to be the perfect "birds in flight" lens. Very light and damn fast focusing. Very Very sharp as well. When I say sharp, I mean shot wide open. Just about any quality lens will be sharp if stopped down enough. Even some real bargin lenses will be great at f/8-f/12, if that is where you shoot all the time. Wide open is a whole other story and the 400 f/5.6, 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 100-400 are all very, very sharp wide open.
Have I spent enough of your money? :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[transcend]

Well, glad that everyone is reaffirming my primary choice! That just seems to make like much easier, and the decision making process pretty simple.

I agree with everyone that the 100-400 is a damn fine lens, I was just looking at my other choices. Looks like I will save some cash and get the 100-400 shortly.

Ian, I think she'd kill me if I went and spent that much that fast. ha.

[robertwgross]

It's a bit over $7K for a 600mm lens!

Yes, I classify that as awfully serious.

---Bob Gross---

[transcend]

Yes, I classify that as awfully serious.

---Bob Gross---

You and I both.