Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · Which way would you go?
  
 
bipock
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Which way would you go?


I recently switched over to a FF camera after my "great gear reduction" sale. I am now shooting a 5D3, 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 IS. I would like to add something for reach as I do enjoy outdoor/wildlife/BIF photography.

Obviously, a 500 would be perfect, but that will not be happening. So here are the options:

- 300 f/4 IS with 1.4x when needed
- 400 5.6
- 100-400: in full disclosure having had this lens before I am not particularly fond of it

Obviously, there are the Sigma variations to consider also.

I'm leaning 300 with 1.4x as I like the idea of having a 300 and a 420 when needed.

Any other ideas to toss out?



Apr 04, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Paulthelefty
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Which way would you go?


My thoughts based on your current selection:

The 400 5.6 is considered THE standard for budget vs reach. There is so much debate here and other places about how a 300 plus 1.4 or any of the 200mm plus a 2x compares. I am looking at the 400 length myself, so I have read most of those threads. The first big constant is that NOTHING will match the 400 prime for IQ in a lab test. It is the king of the hill. The second is most every other combination has IS, which the 400 prime does not, so if IS is a requirement, there is your answer. The 1.4x degrades much less than any of the 2x extenders from what I have read, so the 300 plus 1.4x is generally considered #2 after the 400 prime.

You say you did not like the 100-400. I have heard the sample to sample variation was/is quite wide, and that a good copy can run IQ wise with anything out there and even brush up to the 400 prime IQ. The problem is nobody with a good copy wants to sell!

I have heard mixed reviews of the mark II 70-200 f2.8 with a 2xmkIII, so I plan to rent the 2x and test it within the next few weeks since I own the 70-200 already. If this produces satisfactory results, I will have a 140-400 f5.6, great versatility! I could have a $500 solution to a $1200 problem... You have the f4 zoom, so this would not work for you. I had the f4, a great lens! Sold it to fund the 2.8 since I needed 2.8 for indoor sports, otherwise it would still be in my bag!

So, how important is IQ? Do you need IS? do you need 300mm? A few things to consider

Paul



Apr 04, 2012 at 05:25 PM
jj_glos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Which way would you go?


It might be worth having a look at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS. It looks like it takes both 1.4 & 2.0 extenders pretty well.


Apr 04, 2012 at 05:38 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Which way would you go?


Ahhh.....the old 400 f.5.6 <> 300 f/4+1.4xTC <> 100-400 trilemma.

Is it possible to say more or something different on the subject than what has been written hundreds of times already on this forum ?

However, if you really wanna up your wildlife game, there is a supertelephoto lens which costs much less than 500 f/4, it is also 1 kg lighter, and it has a similar IQ: 500 f/4.5L. Highly recommended.



Apr 04, 2012 at 05:46 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Jim Victory
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Which way would you go?


Since you already have a 70-200 f/4L IS that takes a 1.4x TC very well I would look at the 400 f/5.6L or, if you can find one and have the money, Peter's suggestion for the 500 f/4.5L would be the best.

I presently have the 300 and 400 and if I need IS I take the 300 with a 1.4x otherwise the 400 goes. My copy of the 300 with the new 1.4x III TC is only discernably less sharp than the 400 @5.6 when viewed @ 100%. Certainly not enough to even notice at normal viewing.

What you give up though is slower focusing with the TC and sometimes hunting in less than favorable lighting conditions.

Jim



Apr 04, 2012 at 06:41 PM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Which way would you go?


I've found my 5Ds work quite well with my 100-400. I'd certainly never part with it. I suppose the 400 f5.6 prime might edge it out on a tripod but that seems kind of limiting to me. The zoom certainly pairs well with the 24-105. Add the 100L and maybe a 35 f2 and you should be able to photograph anything anywhere. Well, you might need a G series with UW housing, I do.


Apr 04, 2012 at 07:52 PM
CW100
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Which way would you go?


Jeff Nolten wrote:
I've found my 5Ds work quite well with my 100-400. I'd certainly never part with it. I suppose the 400 f5.6 prime might edge it out on a tripod but that seems kind of limiting to me. The zoom certainly pairs well with the 24-105. Add the 100L and maybe a 35 f2 and you should be able to photograph anything anywhere. Well, you might need a G series with UW housing, I do.


I also had the 100-400 and 400mm 5.6 and ultimately kept the 100-400 for versatility, I found it almost as sharp as the prime









Apr 05, 2012 at 11:27 AM
bipock
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Which way would you go?


Thanks guys. I tested out the 100-400 locally and still just can't do the push/pull thing. Ended up with a Sigma 120-400 that was more than sharp enough on my body. The OS system is pretty phenominal and AF was fast enough for my needs so I'm happy.


Apr 05, 2012 at 04:06 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password