Equipment Question

wcavanagh

wcavanagh

Messages
995
Edit My Images
No
All,
After some thoughts and advice. I mainly photograph wildlide, and spend a lot of time at wildlife parks. May also try some nature, you know flowers, etc..

I am running a Canon 7D, with a 100-400L and a 24 - 105L at the moment. Now I have found myself with some money in my pocket that needs to go on a new lens.

I was wondering if I should go for a 100mm Macro to expend on the close up work. Or should on look at the longer lens, I love my 100-400 but find sometimes I just want something else, just not sure.

Thoughts? I get told the 70 - 200 2.8 II is something worth a look. I dunno.
 
wcavanagh said:
All,
After some thoughts and advice. I mainly photograph wildlide, and spend a lot of time at wildlife parks. May also try some nature, you know flowers, etc..

I am running a Canon 7D, with a 100-400L and a 24 - 105L at the moment. Now I have found myself with some money in my pocket that needs to go on a new lens.

I was wondering if I should go for a 100mm Macro to expend on the close up work. Or should on look at the longer lens, I love my 100-400 but find sometimes I just want something else, just not sure.

Thoughts? I get told the 70 - 200 2.8 II is something worth a look. I dunno.
Click to expand...

That's nice :) Sounds like the money is burning a hole rather than answering a need, but I know the feeling.

If you like lovely lenses, the 70-200L 2.8 MkII is an object of serious desire. Put an extender on it and you effectively have a 70-400mm f/2.8-5.6 zoom. Use it with tubes for close up, which I find more versatile than a dedicated macro for general stuff like flowers. You don't really need a macro for that.

Sell the 100-400L. Or being more sensible, just stick some tubes on the end of it for close ups and save yourself £2k.

How about a 300L 2.8 plus extenders? That should empty your pockets very well but also give you more significant wildlife options with a 300-600mm f/2.8-5.6 lens. And a mega new toy ;)
 
Oh dear choices, choices, what too do, lol, the 100mm L Macro is nice. But then 300L 2.8 is nice too. Ahhh why do I have expensive hobbies? lol
 
Get the 300mm if you can afford it and both the 1.4 and 2x TC's + some macro tubes.

You can then using it for portraits, wildlife, sports, macros and much more.

I barely use any other lens since I got he 300mm2.8!

The 400mm 2.8 is nice but too heavy to use hand-held for the whole day.
 
I am liking the 300 option, but would the flex of a zoom. I find in the wildlife parks this most useful.

LOL, would be easier to buy a car with my cash, LOL.
 
wcavanagh said:
LOL, would be easier to buy a car with my cash, LOL.
Click to expand...

If you haven't got one then the car would make the most difference, and it needn't cost more than 100 L.
 
daugirdas said:
If you haven't got one then the car would make the most difference, and it needn't cost more than 100 L.
Click to expand...

LOL, fortunately or unfortunately I have a nice motor already. But I am sure I spent less time deciding to buy that than a lens, lol
 
I think if I was in your position, I'd have a serious look at the MPE-65 for macro work. I've seen fantastic results with it and hear that it is a bit of a beast to get used to so should keep you challenged for a while.
 
I'd certainly avoid a 400/2.8 that's for sure.

Although many on here don't mind it, I've never got on with the 300/2.8 and 2x converter. Therefore, for me a 300 is a 300/2.8 and a 420/4. Doesn't give you much more reach than you currently have (although it does provide another stop, which can be very useful)

For me, the ultimate wildlife lens is the 500/4, which is why mine hasn't been serviced for a while - I never want to be without it!
 
grumpybadger said:
Therefore, for me a 300 is a 300/2.8 and a 420/4. Doesn't give you much more reach than you currently have (although it does provide another stop, which can be very useful)
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree :)

First photo at 600mm (2x TC), second one at 840mm (Stacked 1.4x and 2x TC's)

7676df42.jpg

a619d677.jpg
 
I'm another fan of the 300 with TCs.

These are both with the 2x and no extension tubes for the second image.

Wren.jpg


Bee.jpg
 
It's hard to argue that a 300 2.8 with extenders is not an immensly capable and relatively manageable combo, that is almost affordable and holds value very well.

But it's not a dedicated 500 4 and, with respect to you guys, some small screen images - nice though they may be - are unlikely to sway the balance much ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
It's hard to argue that a 300 2.8 with extenders is not an immensly capable and relatively manageable combo, that is almost affordable and holds value very well.

But it's not a dedicated 500 4 and, with respect to you guys, some small screen images - nice though they may be - are unlikely to sway the balance much ;)
Click to expand...

Email me and I will send the full images to you.
It is not a dedicated 500mm but I can use it without a tripod while hiking all day and take it on a plane with me around the world.
 
micloi said:
Email me and I will send the full images to you.
It is not a dedicated 500mm but I can use it without a tripod while hiking all day and take it on a plane with me around the world.
Click to expand...

Again with respect, that's not the point. I believe that the 300 2.8 plus extenders is a very good, versatile and relatively economical choice. I suggested it to the OP and thought about getting it myself until sanity prevailed and I opted to hire as and when (I don't do much of that kind of thing, unfortunately).

But shot side by side with a 500 4, I don't think there'd be much doubt about which has the better IQ. It's always a compromise. 600 4 would be better still for birding but that's an even more massively expensive and unmanageable monster IMHO :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top