I was wondering what advice people could give me regarding a dilemma. I'm heading on safari shortly and was trying to decide what lens would be most suitable to buy for it.
I know that length is everything when photographing wildlife, but am stuck in a quandary due to budgetary constraints.
My dilemma is this - should I buy the new 70-300mm IS lens which is supposedly good quality, or a prime 200mm L 2.8 which is relatively affordable, plus a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter?
If I go with the former, then the long end is 300mm f5.6 but with 2-3 stops advantage from IS.
If I go with the latter, then I can have - effectively - 280 f4 or 400 f5.6 with no IS.
Since I'm shooting digital (350D), I can always push the ISO out on the latter combination to - effectively - get an extra couple of stops anyway.
So, the main question is, do people here think that the IS & convenience of zoom is worth the slight loss in image quality of the zoom compared to the prime?
Or does the slightly faster lens and improved image quality compensate for the lack of IS?
And once you add a TC, is the improvement in image quality all that much anyway?
Sorry for the long post, but I'd appreciate any input.
For an accurate assessment you may need to wait until someone has the new 70-300IS. If you were leaving tomorrow and had to choose based on the current 75-300 and the 200, I would grab the 200 in a second.
Come April, I will be making a choice between a 70-200/4, the 200 (and a 1.4 converter) or the new 75-300IS. PITA to decide isn't it ...
It certainly is!
Looking at the pics that have popped up on the forums at dpreview.com, it seems that the new 70-300IS is on a par with - and possibly better than - the 70-300DO. Not sure what this means, though, for my question.
I saw those pics at dpreview and they did not convince me either way. I remember a fairly poor effort at photographing a truck with the new 70-300. I need something a bit more deliberate, on a tripod etc.. before I decide.
I really want that 200 2.8, -the color, the contrast- but then I have to foot-zoom. Maybe you could distract a lion by throwing a rock... then foot-zoom. Quickly.
Everything I've seen has said that you should expect to see a significant dropoff in quality with the use of a 2x TC. Lots of folks argue that the results are acceptable but that's really a subjective measure. Given that, the dropoff in quality to get to 400mm is probably going to be much higher with the 200 (with a 2x) than the 70-300 (with a 1.4x).
If your priority is the highest quality (on a budget) at 200mm and 300mm, I'd definitely go with the 200L. If it's flexibility, handhold-ability and the ability to get to 400mm, the 70-300 is probably the way to go.
sleibrand wrote:
Everything I've seen has said that you should expect to see a significant dropoff in quality with the use of a 2x TC. Lots of folks argue that the results are acceptable but that's really a subjective measure. Given that, the dropoff in quality to get to 400mm is probably going to be much higher with the 200 (with a 2x) than the 70-300 (with a 1.4x).
If your priority is the highest quality (on a budget) at 200mm and 300mm, I'd definitely go with the 200L. If it's flexibility, handhold-ability and the ability to get to 400mm, the 70-300 is probably the way to go....Show more →
Problem with this would be loss of AF for the 300 +1.4x, whereas the 200+2x would retain AF. And I don't trust my ability to MF yet...
Sigma 80-400 OS?
And I tried this once - it was a tad too big and heavy for me and my 350d.
Edited by mad_iguana on Sep 28, 2005 at 03:26 PM GMT
Thanks a million everyone!
Plenty of food for thought.
I think Gino hit the nail on the head there though - it's a trade-off between image quality and versatility.
I'm tempted to think - from what I've read - that even the 200 f2.8L with a 2x tcon would have comparable image quality to the long end of the 70-300, so the question becomes about the freedom provided by IS vs the sacrifice of higher ISO nos., and the possibility that light might be so low (early morning/late evening) that even ISO 1600 produces a shutter speed that's too slow.
OK, after thinking about it overnight, I think I'll go with the 200 prime and the two teleconverters for flexibility.
There's a second hand 200 f2.8 here in Dublin that looks in good condition, so that's sorted.
I have an old 75-300 zoom that I can use if I absolutely need the range.
And I'll just have to live without IS and push the ISO if I need to speed up the shutter on the prime + TC.
Thanks for your help.
