What Lens Do I Choose???

Just kidding.

I'm trying to break down the family spending authorization protocol to get a 70-200 IS. For a split second, I thought about getting the 100-400 IS instead. Folks are saying that even with a 2x TC the 70-200 outperforms the 100-400. Luminous has a side by side that says pretty much the same.

So I'm set to get the 70-200 IS.

Could use some help on the art of persuasion.

Ilya

I'm not kidding...

Big question: What is the 100-400 in terms of Fstop and the 70-200 is F2.8. What does that F2.8 lens become with the 2x (F5.6?) extender and then you have a 70-140 w/ extender @F2.8, and then you have the 140-400 @ F5.6. Is that too slow for what you will be doing? Just some thoughts to consider...

Canuck, if you're serious to know my in-depth reasoning -

The 100-400mm lens is an f/5.6 when used at 400mm, and the 70-200mm lens, though an f/2.8, becomes an f/5.6 when used with a 2X extender.

Wide open, at f/5.6, the 100-400mm lens is a bit sharper than the 70-200mm and 2X combination.

However, at f11, closed down two stops, the lenses are essentially equal.

However, as you know, a 2x teleconverter is a light-robbing quality-sucking evil; so its almost like saying lets test the 70-200 with one hand tied behind its back. Without it, the 70-200 is unequivocably superior in its range.

For my needs, the 70-200 range is in the sweetspot; and when I want to go long, I'll be very happy to know that the TC gets me the 100-400 as a bonus for about $250 (for a good canon TC). If the reverse was true ~ 100-400 outperforms the 70-200 on its home turf; then I'd get that.

That's my thinking. Let me know if you need more.

Ilya:
I was serious this time.
I know, this is a rare almost one-off!
Cost: lens alone:
Canon: $1400 (IS); Sigma $700, +TC (Source: B&H)
My next question becomes with range would you be most likely to use said lens at 70-200 and them being neck and neck at F11, why not fo for the Sigma? It is 1/2 price for the lens and then the TC.
How often do you plan to shoot say 200-400mm and wide open at F5.6? I'm leaning toward the Sigma more and more. I know Canon L glass looks cool, but why go for it when you can go cheaper and not notice the difference? The first side of this coin is that I realise that TCs are light robbers, but you can to some extent overcome this if you will be shooting in broad daylight. (Sidebar: I got the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 for astrophotography and airshows. Also, Canon doensn't make a lens out to 300 F2.8 zoom. While we're on the subject, a 2x TC would likely do much better for me than the Sigma 50-500mm. Now I'd have a 240--600 F5.6 (w/ TC, or 120-300 w/o) vs a 50-500 F4.0-6.3) Now then the end of the day, how much would you be saving and then weigh it from that view. If you can swing for the L glass, you probably should go that route. You really can't loose w/ L glass! The Sigma lens, on the other side of the coin is much cheaper. I have an idea, flip the coin I've been talking about. Have you looked at reviews for both lenses? There are numeraous sites for that. That might be a really good idea, just for grins. I have never shot with that lens, but I have found someone who knows about abut this kinda thing away from the actual purchase often gives the best advice.

Given this, w/o seeing reviews, it seems to me like the edge goes to Sigma given what you told me.

Just my thoughts...I'm calling it a night, it's 0415 here in England and am going horizontal.

Image Stabilizer
Superior Optics
Its White

I beg to differ as someone who has both. The Canon is much better for quality - edge sharpness, CA and contrast to mention but three. You don't have to look very hard to see the differences.

If the cost saving balances out the loss of quality, then fine, but if what you are photographing is important enough to you to give it the best optics then the Canon wins. Not to mention other niceties like IS.

Ilya:
I found the answer several years ago, and it's worked like a charm ever since.

Very simply, the answer is: Louis Vuitton purses.

They are hideously expensive and grotesque looking, but most women love them. Just do a Google search for Louis Vuitton + Murakami, and be prepared for a shock (and maybe a good laugh).

A couple months ago I bought my wife a limited edition LV Murakami purse----impossible to find here in the U.S., but readily available on eBay. I think we paid around $1800 for it, but since then, I've managed to score the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, the 24-70 f/2.8L, and a second 10D body. It's difficult looking at that ugly, ugly purse, but consider what I've accomplished.

Sometimes you have to take a step backwards in order to take two steps forward.

I hope this is helpful. Generally I am reluctant to give away all my secrets----if too many people get wind of this little trick, demand for those nauseating purses will skyrocket. Not only will that run up the prices, but it might create a visual blight on our planet that could cease procreation and ultimately lead to eradication of our species. On the other hand, that still might not be too high a price to pay for really good optics.

Anyway, Ilya, that's what works in this house. I wish you luck.

Tom

BTW, she's gotten more compliments and admiring nods because of that stupid purse than I've ever gotten with any of my lenses. Of course, I don't walk around the mall with my camera dangling casually by my side.

Could be the difference, I guess.

(I don't really care, either.)

Hi Belmond,

I have found that Bridge leather handbags/weekend bags etc work quite well, the bonus is that they are nice Italian leather and dont make you want to stab yourself in both eyes with the nearest sharp object. Louis Vuitton yeuch, ok I'm a philistine but please.... Limited edition, can you say thank god. Anyway back to the plot.... you could also try doing what I did which was to get the wife interested in photography, so long as she buys into the same lens family as you it's a good thing. Downsides are that you get to carry the gear and she gets to use it, and somehow you end up being the photo assistant, but she does egg you on when you are drooling in the photo shop.

Best regards

BearSummer

(Tom - she already has one or two of each LV and the Gucci; I'm not sure this makes for leverage around here, but I thank you kindly for revealing trade secrets. From a cashflow perspective though, its funny how two wrongs somehow make a right!!)

Having said that, I need EMERGENCY COUNSEL now

Its become an intense negotiation. The draft Memo of Understanding is as follows:

In exchange for being allowed to purchase the aforementioned lens, the Purchaser heretofore agrees, without reservation and in sheer desperation to the following:

1. For a period of no shorter then 2 (two) years not to purchase, acquire, barter if a cash component is involved, beg or steal any SLR camera body whether digital or film, canon or nikon or any other. Exclusions are replacements in case of fire, theft, or any act of god.

2. For a period of no shorter then 2 (two) years, the Pathetic Purchaser shall not acquire, barter, beg or steal or cause any of the Purchaser's agents to do likewise, any other LENS aside from those currently in possession. Exclusions are as above.

The Authorizer also is pressing hard on installing additional limits on ancillary equipment. Given that I've just agreed (in principle) to give up any more lenses and camera bodies for 2 long years, I'm not having any other restrictions. Its a bit of a stalemate.

I wonder whether my concessions too generous? Current lenses: 17-40L, 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS, 50 1.8. I figure if I get the 70-200 2.8IS I won't need any other lens, especially that TCs aren't in the spirit of this agreement considered a lens. I don't think I'll need an upgrade from the 10D for next two years. (I also think 2 years is a long time, and stuff happens... )

Anyway, help.

Ilya

ilya wrote:
(Tom - she already has one or two of each LV and the Gucci; I'm not sure this makes for leverage around here, but I thank you kindly for revealing trade secrets. From a cashflow perspective though, its funny how two wrongs somehow make a right!!)

Having said that, I need EMERGENCY COUNSEL now

Its become an intense negotiation. The draft Memo of Understanding is as follows:

In exchange for being allowed to purchase the aforementioned lens, the Purchaser heretofore agrees, without reservation and in sheer desperation to the following:

1. For a period of no shorter then 2 (two) years not to purchase, acquire, barter if a cash component is involved, beg or steal any SLR camera body whether digital or film, canon or nikon or any other. Exclusions are replacements in case of fire, theft, or any act of god.

2. For a period of no shorter then 2 (two) years, the Pathetic Purchaser shall not acquire, barter, beg or steal or cause any of the Purchaser's agents to do likewise, any other LENS aside from those currently in possession. Exclusions are as above.

The Authorizer also is pressing hard on installing additional limits on ancillary equipment. Given that I've just agreed (in principle) to give up any more lenses and camera bodies for 2 long years, I'm not having any other restrictions. Its a bit of a stalemate.

I wonder whether my concessions too generous? Current lenses: 17-40L, 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS, 50 1.8. I figure if I get the 70-200 2.8IS I won't need any other lens, especially that TCs aren't in the spirit of this agreement considered a lens. I don't think I'll need an upgrade from the 10D for next two years. (I also think 2 years is a long time, and stuff happens... )

Anyway, help.

Ilya

Ilya, Sorry, but you inadvertantly made a great argument for staying single.
BTW, I'd go for the "L" glass.
.........Bruce

Update:

Somehow I've managed to reduce the term of the agreement to one year. So no camera, no other lens for one year.

In exchange for going from 2 years to 1 year, there is now a clause that miscellaneous, non-camera non-lens purchases will require a match equal to 50% of the value of the purchase for our son's college fund.

I'm thinking this is now a great deal - a win-win. One year goes by quick, L-glass is forever.

Take it?

Go for it. Your lens setup will be pretty much complete anyway except for long stuff. And you say that the TC's aren't technically considered a lens in this contract. You have a collection anyone would envy and yes, one year does go by fast. Not to mention that JUST being restricted to no camera bodies and lenses leaves a wide open whole in the market for everything else Canon.

You could do that one year standing on your head.

ITS DONE!!

Agreed, its a great deal.

Bruce - I wouldn't have it any other way


If anyone wants to retain me to consult on their own L-Negotiations, I'm sure we could work something out.

I think you are missing out on an opportunity here... The likelyhood of needing to upgrade the body is slim (IMO). You should throw that into the mix as a bargaining chip...

"Honey, I'd like to make a proposal. We extend the one year moratorium on the camera body to 2 years in consideration for a $250 discresionary budget per quarter (with the 50% college fund matching) that may be spent on sundry items"