lens diLemma

[mmcp42]

I'm looking to get a new lens for 5D II
main reason is so I can get closer to our feather friends
on the shopping list (all Canon)

300 f/2.8 L IS
300 f/4 L IS
400 f/2.8 L IS
400 f/4 DO IS
400 f/5.6 L

100-400 f/4.5-f/5.6 L IS

obviously larger aperture is desirable, but cost is a factor I can't ignore
the zoom is more flexible in terms of focal length (and has IS) but is image quality on the zoom good enough or are the primes significantly better?

er not confused:thinking::shrug:

[nowler]

i'd consider the 300 f2.8 and the 1.4 and 2x tele's. they were designed for this lens and it makes a good combination imho.

[Joe T]

For birds on full frame you need all the length you can get!

Is a 600 f4 (maybe 2nd hand) within budget?

[mmcp42]

i'd consider the 300 f2.8 and the 1.4 and 2x tele's. they were designed for this lens and it makes a good combination imho.
I didn't know they were designed with a particular lens in mind - so thanks for the heads-up on that

For birds on full frame you need all the length you can get!

Is a 600 f4 (maybe 2nd hand) within budget?
:gag: WEX have it at £7,339 - I'd need to sell all the kids and both kidneys
shame - I'm rather attached to the kidneys

not seen a 2nd-hand one anywhere

[dazzajl]

I've not used many of those on your list but I can tell you that I loved the 300/2.8 as it is and it's still mightily impressive with either TC. The 100-400 is a good good bit of kit but somehow it just didn't press the buttons for me.

Nowt wrong with it and as you've seen here, can produce great results but somehow, prime is where it's at.

[mmcp42]

thanks dazzajl - I think I'm starting to lean that way

[RichardtheSane]

I think Mifsuds have a 500mm F4 IS in stock used at the moment...

[dazzajl]

That's the one other long lens I've had a play with and it's also very very good.

Ahhhh, decisions decisions eh. :lol:

[Wildlight]

Canon 500mm f/4 is a fantastic lens, or if it's too expensive there's the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 which is also fantastic :-)
The Canon 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM is said to be Canon's sharpest ever optic so you can't go wrong buying one!
The 100-400mm and 400mm f/5.6 are a bit slow in my opinion but they are the cheaper and lighter option.
Then, of course, there's the Canon 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM... the wildlife photographer's dream lens! If you can afford it, then you won't regret it (give it a try before you buy though, the weight might just too much!). Coupled with a 1.4x or 2x TC and you'll have a 560mm f/4 or an 800mm f/5.6 :-D

All depends on your budget and strength :-)

Joe

[mmcp42]

thanks Joe
so much to think about!

[incapete]

Buy a crop sensor and get some extra length that way?

[mmcp42]

Buy a crop sensor and get some extra length that way?

not so sure about that
5D II has more PPD than a 400 for example (pixels per duck)

[Left_eye]

Worth also considering the weight factor.

Of the lenses I can only offer user experience on the 300 2.8 IS and its a truly wonderful lens. It is heavy but I've gone through a day hand holding it with with a 1 series. On a full frame, it may be too short for you however given the resolution you are dealing with, you can always crop.

[incapete]

not so sure about that
5D II has more PPD than a 400 for example (pixels per duck)


I was only being silly anyway, sorry.

So the 5DII has enough pixels to let you crop in to the equivalent image size as you'd have got with the 1.6x extra from a crop-sensor and still end up with a similar resolution? That's pretty good to know - although I doubt I'll be able to jump to that model as my first full-frame!

[mmcp42]

Worth also considering the weight factor.

Of the lenses I can only offer user experience on the 300 2.8 IS and its a truly wonderful lens. It is heavy but I've gone through a day hand holding it with with a 1 series. On a full frame, it may be too short for you however given the resolution you are dealing with, you can always crop.

yup, weight is on the list with a suitable "weighting factor" :coat:

[kaz10]

I have the 300 2.8 IS and I love it wouldn t swap it for the world I have just sold my 100-400 and bought the 400f5.6 for my wildlife walkabout lens as the 300 gets heavy for me when i am walking a long way and I am also well pleased with the 400 its sharper then the 100-400

[mmcp42]

I have the 300 2.8 IS and I love it wouldn t swap it for the world I have just sold my 100-400 and bought the 400f5.6 for my wildlife walkabout lens as the 300 gets heavy for me when i am walking a long way and I am also well pleased with the 400 its sharper then the 100-400

thanks kaz
that's the sort of objective opinion I'm after

[Canon Bob]

.....5D II has more PPD than a 400D for example (pixels per duck)

Does it ? ;)

Bob

PS....600/4 IS L for sale here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7874035&postcount=1)

[kaz10]

thanks kaz
that's the sort of objective opinion I'm after

also forgot to add that the convertors work well with the 300

[HoppyUK]

I've thought about this a lot, and have broken it down into various sectors considering reach, AF and price. Your 5D is not a good start for either reach or AF :(

I think I am on the bottom rung with a 40D and 100-400L. I need more reach but lose AF with a 1.4x TC

So my next step might be a 300 2.8L with 2x Extender = 600 5.6. This gives me about as much reach as I can handle with a crop, and retains AF. By all accounts this combo gives decent results, and one thing is for sure is that the 300 2.8 is the best value super-tele, can be easily picked up used, and sold on for what you paid for it.

Next step might be a 1D3 for it's wonderful AF and all round speed.

To make up for the loss of reach, the final push in this dream scenario is a mega prime with 1.4x Extender. 600 4 is physically too big I think, and certainly very costly. I think I'd go for the 500 4.

I would like to work the 400 DO into all this, lovely little lens and I think sharp enough, but not with an Extender. That is what the guys on here told me.

[mmcp42]

not so sure about that
5D II has more PPD than a 400 for example (pixels per duck)

Does it ? ;)

Bob

PS....600/4 IS L for sale here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7874035&postcount=1)

oh cripes what have I started now!
5DII 21 Mpixels 5616 x 3744 crop factor 1.0
400D 10 Mpixels 3904 x 2598 crop factor 1.6

5DII has twice as many pixels so would need a crop factor of 2 on the 400D to have the same PPD

so I think 5DII wins

or should I be sitting on it instead of talking out of it?

[mmcp42]

I've thought about this a lot, and have broken it down into various sectors considering reach, AF and price. Your 5D is not a good start for either reach or AF :(

I think I am on the bottom rung with a 40D and 100-400L. I need more reach but lose AF with a 1.4x TC

So my next step might be a 300 2.8L with 2x Extender = 600 5.6. This gives me about as much reach as I can handle with a crop, and retains AF. By all accounts this combo gives decent results, and one thing is for sure is that the 300 2.8 is the best value super-tele, can be easily picked up used, and sold on for what you paid for it.

Next step might be a 1D3 for it's wonderful AF and all round speed.

To make up for the loss of reach, the final push in this dream scenario is a mega prime with 1.4x Extender. 600 4 is physically too big I think, and certainly very costly. I think I'd go for the 500 4.

I would like to work the 400 DO into all this, lovely little lens and I think sharp enough, but not with an Extender. That is what the guys on here told me.

thanks Hoppy
didn't know that the DO wasn't so hot with an extender
shame as it sounds like a neat idea

[HoppyUK]

thanks Hoppy
didn't know that the DO wasn't so hot with an extender
shame as it sounds like a neat idea

I have never tried it, but this cute little lens seemed perfect to me. It appears to have got the lot, 600 5.6 with a 1.4x Extender. Potentially hand-holdable. I was going to make a move but thought I'd ask on here why this lens was not top of everybody's list. I had a 70-300 DO and don't suffer from diffractive optics-itis.

I'm sure somebody will confirm, but those that have used this lens and whose opinions I respect say it's a one trick pony and is very good at b4ing small, but don't push your luck. Well, not at that price.

Anyway, things then got in the way and I bought a car ;)

[incapete]

oh cripes what have I started now!
5DII 21 Mpixels 5616 x 3744 crop factor 1.0
400D 10 Mpixels 3904 x 2598 crop factor 1.6

5DII has twice as many pixels so would need a crop factor of 2 on the 400D to have the same PPD

so I think 5DII wins

or should I be sitting on it instead of talking out of it?

This is really interesting actually - one of the reasons I was put off full-frame was losing the reach but if the pixels make up for it then that's a whole new side of things to think about.

I'd love to hear if anyone can back this up - it seems to make sense to me but I'm no expert.

[grumpybadger]

OK. My opinions and they are only opinions.

1. You can choose to shoot wildlife on full frame - I do for 95% of what I shoot.
2. Someone described the 400/2.8 as the wildlife photography dream. It's not. It is probably a sports photographer's dream and a good compromise but you always compromise image quality with extenders.
3. Therefore, 600/4 is probably the "ultimate"
4. It is heavy and expensive and so many people (including me) use a 500/4 as it is cheaper, easier to carry and lighter
5. Of the lenses you mention, the 300/2.8 is a class above the rest.
6. I had a 400/4 DO and, although I liked it at the time, my 300 and 500 lenses blew it away for quality - although it is light
7. I wasn't that impressed with the 300/4. It was pretty good but I reckon the images from it weren't as good as the 400/5.6
8. The 100-400 isn't as good a quality lens but it is convenient. I run mine with a 500 and they make a great pair
9. If you use a tripod, you don't need IS (as much)
10. I'd recommend a 500 as the best alrounder for the price with the 300/2.8 and extenders second - although the 300 with a 2x is quite slow to focus.

[grumpybadger]

This is really interesting actually - one of the reasons I was put off full-frame was losing the reach but if the pixels make up for it then that's a whole new side of things to think about.

I'd love to hear if anyone can back this up - it seems to make sense to me but I'm no expert.

Nope. The crop refers to one direction. So a 1.6 crop camera has 1.6x1.6=2.5x smaller area so a 21 Mpx 5DII is equivalent to 8.4 Mpx in the crop area.

[incapete]

Nope. The crop refers to one direction. So a 1.6 crop camera has 1.6x1.6=2.5x smaller area so a 21 Mpx 5DII is equivalent to 8.4 Mpx in the crop area.

Cheers - that makes sense too!

It still means that the 5DII cropped to replicate the field of view is similar to the 350D with it's crop 8Mpx so it does effectively negate the benefit of the extra reach on a crop, assuming you're not blowing the images up huge.

I'm starting to like the 5DII more and more... :bang:

[mmcp42]

OK. My opinions and they are only opinions.

1. You can choose to shoot wildlife on full frame - I do for 95% of what I shoot.
2. Someone described the 400/2.8 as the wildlife photography dream. It's not. It is probably a sports photographer's dream and a good compromise but you always compromise image quality with extenders.
3. Therefore, 600/4 is probably the "ultimate"
4. It is heavy and expensive and so many people (including me) use a 500/4 as it is cheaper, easier to carry and lighter
5. Of the lenses you mention, the 300/2.8 is a class above the rest.
6. I had a 400/4 DO and, although I liked it at the time, my 300 and 500 lenses blew it away for quality - although it is light
7. I wasn't that impressed with the 300/4. It was pretty good but I reckon the images from it weren't as good as the 400/5.6
8. The 100-400 isn't as good a quality lens but it is convenient. I run mine with a 500 and they make a great pair
9. If you use a tripod, you don't need IS (as much)
10. I'd recommend a 500 as the best alrounder for the price with the 300/2.8 and extenders second - although the 300 with a 2x is quite slow to focus.

oh grumpy one - your opinion is always valued by me
and you do talk a lot of sense
I am definitely leaning towards the 300/2.8
still means both kids have to go, but I think I can keep one kidney

Nope. The crop refers to one direction. So a 1.6 crop camera has 1.6x1.6=2.5x smaller area so a 21 Mpx 5DII is equivalent to 8.4 Mpx in the crop area.

hmm I always thought 1.6 was the area ratio
you learn from your mistakes (mebbe that's why I know so much :thinking:)

[kaz10]

if you choose the 300 you won t regret it

[Canon Bob]

Nope. The crop refers to one direction. So a 1.6 crop camera has 1.6x1.6=2.5x smaller area so a 21 Mpx 5DII is equivalent to 8.4 Mpx in the crop area.

Precisely :thumbs:......the 5D2 is very close to the 20D/30D pixel density.

Bob

[mmcp42]

Nope. The crop refers to one direction. So a 1.6 crop camera has 1.6x1.6=2.5x smaller area so a 21 Mpx 5DII is equivalent to 8.4 Mpx in the crop area.

Precisely :thumbs:......the 5D2 is very close to the 20D/30D pixel density.

Bob

thanks Bob
I'll go to the bottom of the class :(

[Canon Bob]

thanks Bob
I'll go to the bottom of the class :(

Can I suggest a D60 or D300 then :naughty:

[mmcp42]

Can I suggest a D60 or D300 then :naughty:

no, sir, please sir, I'll be good, sir
don't make me do it

[StewartR]

For what it's worth, my vote would be for the 300/2.8 and a pair of Extenders (1.4x and 2x). I quite like the idea of 600mm hand-holdable. The 500/4 and 600.4 aren't hand-holdable - at least by the likes of me. (And probably you, I'm guessing, unless you've spent a lot of time in the gym since we met last summer!)

[mmcp42]

For what it's worth, my vote would be for the 300/2.8 and a pair of Extenders (1.4x and 2x). I quite like the idea of 600mm hand-holdable. The 500/4 and 600.4 aren't hand-holdable - at least by the likes of me. (And probably you, I'm guessing, unless you've spent a lot of time in the gym since we met last summer!)

cheek! (I know - truth hurts!)
I think that, with everything I've read, I'm going for the 300/2.8
just the small matter of persuading the FD !!!:bang:

[Canon Bob]

cheek! (I know - truth hurts!)
I think that, with everything I've read, I'm going for the 300/2.8
just the small matter of persuading the FD !!!:bang:

IMO, you've gone for the correct option :thumbs:

Bob

[mmcp42]

been and gone and done it now
thanks to kerso the lens bag is full :love:
and the wallet is empty :'(

the lens is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge - but lovely!

first shots here (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=134869)
hope to post a few more pics in the next few days