About to purchase my 1st L lens...need some advice

[Methodical]

Hello all. First post but been lurking around. Need some insight. I just purchased the Canon 50D with the EF28-135mm IS UMS lens to get me started for the all around basic pics. However, I like to shoot bird pics, nature and wildlife in general and want to purchase a nice telephoto lens. I've been researching the lenses below but things get confusing about the various lenses and performance.

I want to get the best lens for my situation and get the best pictures as my skills progress. In particular I was concentrating on the f/2.8 IS L lens but according to some it may not have enough focal length to get the good sharp nature pics even at the 320mm focal length (1.6 crop factor of my camera). But then I read about the 1.4x and 2.0 extender which, from my understanding, can extend the focal length upto 480mm or more. Is this a good thing? What will I loose with the extenders and will there be a significant loss or degradation in picture quality. The next one is the EF100-400mm lens. Any help would be appreciated. Also, if you can post pictures (or provide links) using either of these lenses with a similar camera as mine (1.6 factor) would help too.

Also, does anyone know if there is a shop in the Maryland area that rents lenses prior to purchasing. Please let me know.

Thanks for your time


EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS lens
EF70-200mm f/2.8 L lens
EF70-200mm f/4 L IS lens
EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens
EF 300mm f/4 lens (but concerned of maybe it being limited)
EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS L lens

[Treat me like a tourist]

How the hell did this get in here?

Oh - ADMIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you can afford it go with the 70-200 2.8is Everyone needs a 70-200 in their equipment bag. The F4 is a great option too, try both to see if you are ok with the added weight of the 2.8 IS is a nice option to have, if you can afford a lens with it then buy it.
100-400 has a push pull zoom which is not to everyones taste, that and lack of constant aperture, and a softer image compared to say 70-200.
300 is good lens - some reliability issues, do a search on the forum and you will see some old threads on this.
28-300 i think is a light weight lens and so compromises quality of glass used- images not as crisp as those shot with other L lenses.

I think given your situation 70-200 2.8IS with 1.4x converter would give you reach and versatility- it would certainly be a setup you could learn with and it would certainly put a smile on your face each time you viewed your images.

[Methodical]

Thanks for the info. Did I post this in the wrong forum?

How do you like your 70-200 F4L. Is it difficult to shoot without IS. I found a good deal on this lenses and think I will purchase it even though it doesn't have IS.

Again thanks

[Treat me like a tourist]

At the time that i bought it there wasnt an IS version, had there been i doubt that i would have bought it. I rarely use it in the winter or in poor light so have little call for is. If conditions are challenging i always carry a monopod to rest the lens on- it improves results dramatically. If you have the money to spend on an IS version then buy it, its a good investment- i went for a variety of focal lengths as i dont have a favourite form of photography,.,,,,, yet.
Yes its in the wrong forum, this is the lens image archive, no doubt an admin will move it soon........
You really should go to a store and try the lenses- the 2.8 70-200 is a mighty beast and weighs alot, you will be holding the lens rather than the camera!! F4 not so much- either of the 4 versions are excellent value for money.

[GilesGuthrie]

In the 70-200 range, the 70-200 kicks ass in all versions. f/2.8 IS produces lovely images and can go to f/2.8, whereas many people say that f/4 IS is sharper. Obviously, neither lens goes to 400 like the 100-400... Adding a 2x teleconverter slows down autofocus (disables it on the F/4 lenses), and will rob your image of sharpness. It's an "emergency backstop" in my view. So a 70-200 f/2.8 IS with 2x teleconverter will produce softer images than the 100-400 at 400mm.

There is a thread here entitled something like "four ways to 400mm", which shows the various ways you can get to 400mm, and sample images from each.

[Methodical]

Cool found that thread. Thanks for the advice and info.

[labbai]

What was this all about? :rolleyes: I like wide zooms, but those "24-800"mm zooms... well those are not for me. I like it big, heavy and uncomfortable. Impractical and stupid, but nice to touch when you have absolutely nothing else to do. I'm thinking about purchasing Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L or even EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM, but what i need is the MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro....I could get the 50mm and the Macro at the same price as the 85mm, but then again... :oops: