What I want VS what I need

[HectorsGTI]

Alright, I'm ready to move to DSLR. I've owned a film SLR in the past and I've been using a S1 IS for a while now with the Canon 1.6 teleconverter giving me roughly 600mm of optical zoom. I shoot mostly outdoor events and motorsports. Car shows, club track days, races, I'm also a fan of wildlife since I live in the country and I can't leave my backdoor without tripping over wild animals.

Here's what I WANT. Tell me if I NEED something else.

Canon 20D body
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
2x II Extender EF - Autofocus

The only thing I'll need the 100-400 for is outdoor daylight shots. I thought about the 70-200mm f/2.8L but I don't think it will get me close enough to offset the benefits of the faster glass.

That pretty much fits in my budget once I sell my "racecar". I keep a crappy, out-dated, web gallery that I toss photos into when I get a minute. I do web work for three websites so they keep me busy enough to neglect my own. Some of the images are really old, and crappy, but reflect what I like to photograph, so you can get a feel for what like to shoot, and if the setup I picked out will be suitable. I'd like to stick with L glass, If I wanted less I'd just keep the S1 IS , the versitlity of this litlle camera is great.
My Gallery (http://fastgrrls.com/hectors_gallery)

Here's a couple recent samples if you don't feel like wading through the gallery:
http://www.fastgrrls.com/hectors_gallery/event/ALMS08.JPG
http://www.fastgrrls.com/hectors_gallery/event/ALMS13.JPG
http://www.fastgrrls.com/hectors_gallery/event/ALMS24.JPG
http://www.fastgrrls.com/hectors_gallery/event/ALMS01.JPG
http://www.fastgrrls.com/hectors_gallery/nature/NATURE_IMG_0256.jpg

[HectorsGTI]

hmm, I just noticed the discussions about the 24-70mm f/2.8L maybe I"ll get the Tamaron 28-75mmf/2.8 XR LD IF DI instead......

[mbze430]

If you going with a zoom lens lose the 2x TC and get a 1.4x. From most reports 2x TC works better with the primes.

[Skip Souza]

My wife's Tamron 28-78 is an excellent lens.
I agree with the 1.4 TC instead of the 2x.
At some point you will want a real wide angle for use in the paddock, I know I did. My 28-300 just wasn't wide enough. My choice would be the EF-S 10-22, or the 17-40 L. If $ is a serious matter try the Kit lens, cheap used, never mind the nay sayers.

[Jesper]

Canon 20D body
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
2x II Extender EF - AutofocusNote that with the 20D, 100-400 L and a 2x teleconverter, you cannot use autofocus. The 2x teleconverter effectively costs you 2 stops of light, so your 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 will turn into a 200-800 f/9-11.

The 20D, like any non-1-series EOS camera, can't AF if the max. aperture of the lens is smaller than f/5.6 (the pro bodies can AF up to f/8).

The 1.4x TC costs 1 stop of light and would turn your 100-400 into a 140-560 f/6.3-8 (still no AF possible on a 20D).

[rdenney]

Your 100-400 won't autofocus with an extender, as others have noted, on a 20D. Getting faster primes will overwhelm your budget, so consider this: For only a few hundred more than what you outline, you could get the 70-200/4L and the 300/4L, plus the 1.4 converter. 300x1.4=420, which is equivalent to nearly 700mm on a film camera. I don't think I've seen many pros back in the days of film using lenses that long. The 300/4L is about $1150, and the 70-200/4L is about $550. Both are only $360 more than the 100-400, and you'll be able to autofocus both of them with the 1.4 converter in all conditions.

The alternative is a 1DII, which will tack on over $2000, not just $360. But if you must have the focal length, it would be cheaper to get the 1DII than it would to get the f/2.8 L-series primes that go well with the 2X extender. Those will autofocus on the 20D with the extender, too, but they are thousands more.

Rick "who thinks working at this range is costly no matter what" Denney

[HectorsGTI]

Autofocus isn't an issue as the camera I am using now takes so long to autofocus it's worthless. Thanks for the info, I'll scratch the 2x off the list.

The I was eyeing the 17-40 f/4L but would it be fast enough for indoor ambient light? It's also cheaper so I'd have left overs for a 50/1.4.

Thanks for the great pointers.