So sorry another which lens thread- 200 2.8L or 300 4L

I agree the 400/5.6 is a classic birding lens, but the OP mentioned 200 or 300, she also sound like she plans to work handheld/monopod more than tripod so the IS on the 300 + 1.4X might be a better solution.

If she were planning to work via tripod and when the light was good perhaps monopod the 400/5.6 is probably a better solution.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2244584
I agree the 400/5.6 is a classic birding lens, but the OP mentioned 200 or 300, she also sound like she plans to work handheld/monopod more than tripod so the IS on the 300 + 1.4X might be a better solution.

If she were planning to work via tripod and when the light was good perhaps monopod the 400/5.6 is probably a better solution.

She originall stated the 200 or 300 but then said this:

gardengirl13 wrote in post #2243061
Of course the 400 5.6 is close in price to the 300 and close in weight too. Great, now I have three to choose from!!

In2Photos wrote in post #2244625
She originall stated the 200 or 300 but then said this:

Life is never simple is it. I think we all agree that the 200 is too short, great lens though.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2244730
Life is never simple is it. I think we all agree that the 200 is too short, great lens though.

Yup. The 200 is too short. I know from experience, as it is my longest lens, although I haven't tried shooting birds since I got my TC.

In2Photos wrote in post #2244461
I told you why in the bokeh thread.


To add to that the 400 5.6 is generally sharper than the 100-400. If not then the 100-400 is really good or the 400 has something wrong with it. You mention that the 400 w/ TC isn;t that good, but it is. MF only unless you have a 1D or TC that does not report. But if you had the 400 you wouldn't need the TC like you do with the 300 to get to 400mm. I still want the 300.

Yeah, I read your post, but from what I've read with a 1.4x TC you lose almost no image quality?

gardengirl13 wrote in post #2243061
Of course the 400 5.6 is close in price to the 300 and close in weight too. Great, now I have three to choose from!!

I ended the debate going with the 100-400. I know what you said about zooms, but I've also heard some 100-400 shooters do not really zoom it, they choose a focal length (marked on the barrel), twist the locking ring to secure it and then shoot at that FL. You can then change if the situation warrants, almost like changing lens without having to take it off.

That having been said the 300/4 is another superb lens. Optical quality from the two are very similar though... I am very impressed.

I hate to disappoint but I went with the 200 for now. It's close to the FD300 with the crop camera and it's faster so I can use it inside if I want. The hummingbirds tend to feed heavy in the evening so I need a faster lens for that, plus I can get quite close so I don't need the length yet. I am savings for another longer lens some day though. Once I use the 200 + 1.4x and see where I'm short I'll then get the longer lens once I save for a year or three.

thanks everyone.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #2255697
I hate to disappoint but I went with the 200 for now. It's close to the FD300 with the crop camera and it's faster so I can use it inside if I want. The hummingbirds tend to feed heavy in the evening so I need a faster lens for that, plus I can get quite close so I don't need the length yet. I am savings for another longer lens some day though. Once I use the 200 + 1.4x and see where I'm short I'll then get the longer lens once I save for a year or three.

thanks everyone.

Well enjoy its a first class lens and if you don't need the length the right choice.

I'd consider a single lens as part of a set, rather than as an isolated purchase.

I have a 135 f2 and the 300 f4, and a 1.4x TC. Between those three, I've got 135, 190 (approx), 300, and 420mm covered, with IS at the longer lengths.

David

DavidEB wrote in post #2257004
I'd consider a single lens as part of a set, rather than as an isolated purchase.

I have a 135 f2 and the 300 f4, and a 1.4x TC. Between those three, I've got 135, 190 (approx), 300, and 420mm covered, with IS at the longer lengths.

David

Yes this is an imporant point.

When I switched from FD to EF a couple of years back I planed out the basic lens system more or less before I had the camera.

A couple of things changed with more bias towards zooms at the wide to normal end basically because of the IQ advantage of lenses like the 17-40 compared to the venrable 20/2.8.

DavidEB wrote in post #2257004
I'd consider a single lens as part of a set, rather than as an isolated purchase.

I have a 135 f2 and the 300 f4, and a 1.4x TC. Between those three, I've got 135, 190 (approx), 300, and 420mm covered, with IS at the longer lengths.

David

Heh, this is the exact lens combination I was talking about. How do you like it? Does the 10mm or so missing from 200mm bug you? Do you feel the image quality at 200mm is on par with the 200 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8? I realise the 135L is a very very special and sharp lens, but all lenses seem to suffer a little bit from any converter, regardless of it is noticable or not is another thing.