I don't know what to do - Long lens help.

wez130

wez130

Steak,wedges and a pint
Messages
2,242
Edit My Images
Yes
Well after Chester Zoo on sunday, i realised that my 70-200 isn't long enough so i had decided on a 100-400 F4.5-5.6 and that was that, however, i've been reading up on the Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 which, apart from weight, is a dream lens and i want it, but tbh, i can't really afford it yet, so i'd be looking at trading my 70-200 F/4 and my 100mm macro lens (don't think i will use it much) to fund the 100-400 for now, then save a bit more then trade up to the 120-300.

I just can't make up my mind as to wether i will miss my macro lens if i got rid of it, i wanted one for a long time but i'm not that happy with the results i'm getting from it, sure it's very sharp but i got almost 2:1 magnification with my cheap set up which makes 1:1 seem a bit distant lol, however it's also a very good portrait lens, swings and roundabouts eh.

So persuade me either way :D
 
I wouldn't want to lose a 70-200 to get any of the others. Do you have a 1.4x converter?

120-300 is a fine lens but a big committment to take out. If you are not careful, you may find yourself not taking pictures as the kit is too big and heavy for anything that is not a special occassion. I have this problem with the 500...
 
If I had to choose just one lens as a general wildlife lens it would be the 100-400L, it's probably also the ideal lens for zoo photography in most situations. It would be a shame though to part with the other lenses you mention, but obviously you have to cut your cloth accordingly.

Paul's advice is good too when it comes to choosing longer lenses, there definitely comes a point at which carting them about becomes a major undertaking. Having had the 500mm f4L on my back for most of the Chester Zoo Meet I can tell you it's absolutely knackering. I took it for the Jag shots and I'm glad I did, but truthfully the 100-400L would have have done nearly as good a job and not been anywhere near as fatiguing on a full day.

100-400L all the way - just on the great zoom range and relative lightness of it. (y)
 
wez,

my 2p worth... it all depends on what you really want to shoot. I have a 100-400 and it's great with some limitations, I have just today let my 70-200 go simply because I just don't use it anymore.

The sigma 120-300 is an absolute beast of a thingy and as you progress more and more up the focal length ladder they become more specialised. I had a 500 sigma prime and ended up not taking it anywhere due to size, weight tripod etc as it took all the fun out of wildlife shooting. I now have a 300 f4 & 1.4TC and take that everywhere.

So for what it's worth from my experience I would say don't go too specialised until you are sure what you need - the 100-400 could be ideal in the interim.

Hope this is of some help

Good luck with your decision

Rob
 
grumpybadger said:
I wouldn't want to lose a 70-200 to get any of the others. Do you have a 1.4x converter?


120-300 is a fine lens but a big committment to take out. If you are not careful, you may find yourself not taking pictures as the kit is too big and heavy for anything that is not a special occassion. I have this problem with the 500...
Click to expand...

Hi, the 70-200 is F/4, i have a 2x tc but that makes it 400mm F/8, i have my 24-105 to cover the lower end then obviously, with the 100-400 would just overlap at F/4.5 at 100mm, the weight and size of the 120-300 does put me off a little but you can't ignore that with a 2xtc it's 600mm F/5.6, wether i'd need that is a different matter, and again, 2.6kg is a hefty weight to carry about for long periods, after seeing shots on Dseereds 100-400 on sunday, i was well impressed but i'm just concerned it's a bit slow, but at the same time have seen it's very capable, so basically it's a case of do i want a portable super zoom or a fast heavy mid - super zoom. I might hire the 120-300 from StewartR before i make my mind up, but either way, i could still make my trade for the 100-400 as a stop gap.

CT said:
If I had to choose just one lens as a general wildlife lens it would be the 100-400L, it's probably also the ideal lens for zoo photography in most situations. It would be a shame though to part with the other lenses you mention, but obviously you have to cut your cloth accordingly.


Paul's advice is good too when it comes to choosing longer lenses, there definitely comes a point at which carting them about becomes a major undertaking. Having had the 500mm f4L on my back for most of the Chester Zoo Meet I can tell you it's absolutely knackering. I took it for the Jag shots and I'm glad I did, but truthfully the 100-400L would have have done nearly as good a job and not been anywhere near as fatiguing on a full day.

100-400L all the way - just on the great zoom range and relative lightness of it. (y)
Click to expand...


AS above, if i got the 100-400, i'd have the 70-200 range covered with my other lenses, are there any disadvantages to getting rid of the 70-200?

dseered said:
Wez, you should have said, I would have let you have a Razz with my 100-400 on Sunday, I had the 70-200 2.8 and also had a 2x in the bag, so I would have coped !
Click to expand...

I wish i'd have thought of that now tbh, but we weren't to know ;)


Thanks for the input so far anyway :)
 
I am well happy with the images from my 100-400, especially since it has come back from Canon, as for the 70-200 I got mine specifically for social events, weddings etc but went the whole hog and got the 2.8 IS.
I had some serious Lens envy on Sunday but when all said and done the 100-400 is just great for the majority of what I do - next up is a mahooooosive prime for the bird reserves but that them brings massive tripod and sexy heads into the equation, just can't afford, never mind justify such things :(
 
If you need the range then I'd stick to your plan. You've got macro covered elsewhere, the 70-200 range is pretty much covered by the 100-400. I suspect you'd miss the 70-200 more than the macro in the long run though, the F4's a cracker.
 
wez130 said:
AS above, if i got the 100-400, i'd have the 70-200 range covered with my other lenses, are there any disadvantages to getting rid of the 70-200?
Click to expand...

The only disadvantage would be the loss in speed for me having the 2.8 version. Truthfully, if Jan hadn't gotten into togging and using the the 100-400L on our outings, I probably wouldn't have bought the 70-200. If I had to choose between the two I'd keep the 100-400L as it far out-reaches the 70-200.

Then again the 70-200 would come into it's own in available light stuff, but if that's not a consideration for you... :shrug:
 
Hey wez,
I was in your shoes some time ago. I started thinking about buying the bigma 50-500, when I saw a lot of comparisons with the 100-400L. The canon was the winner in all comparisons. I went to the store, tried the canon out, even if it was a bit on the heavy side, it was totally handholdable and had a nice feel to it. I was just about to order it, but since I am a man of almost zero financial impulses, I still had to think it over a bit. Throwing a grand on a lens was a big step for me. After a lot of reading a came to realise that a LOT of people were upgrading the 100-400L to the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. At that point I just crossed the line from that I knew that I would never have a 300mm f/2.8 to the that, well, it is possible. After reading a LOT on the subject, a lot of comparisons and seeing so many amazing shots taken with the sigma, I took the plunge and went for it.
The lens is heavy. After getting the lens I realised that my tripod wasn't up to the job, so I bought the Manfrotto 055XPROB with the 486RC2 head. Another £160 there. But, rest assured, the lens is handholdable. Before I got the new tripod I went out and about with it twice, and I managed to bag a lot of decent shots. A 3 hour hike with it wasn't out of the question, even though I knew I had carried the lens in the evening.
If you want some sample shots just let me know! The wildlife shots in this gallery are with that lens. and if you go to my TB gallery there are some sample shots with and without the 2x TC
 
Right, i've had a bit of a re-think today and have decided that the 120-300 will be a bit of a hassle for every day use, however i'm introducing another lens into the equation, the 70-200 F/2.8 L IS, with the 2xtc it's got the 400mm F/5.6 covered and 70-200 it's obviously fast and obviously it has IS so best of both worlds right? What are the pros and cons of each in this choice?
 
My tuppence worth Wez, I've only had the 100-400 for a week, I had the sigma 70-300 apo etc before which always needed a tripod to get a sharp enoungh shot. With the 100-400 being heavier and with the IS I was very pleasntly surprised to find the majority of my handheld shots have less camera shake at slower shutter speeds than I did with the Sigma. Also I carried around a racetrack all day and never found it tiring. Only time it went in the bag was when I had lunch.
 
wez130 said:
Right, i've had a bit of a re-think today and have decided that the 120-300 will be a bit of a hassle for every day use, however i'm introducing another lens into the equation, the 70-200 F/2.8 L IS, with the 2xtc it's got the 400mm F/5.6 covered and 70-200 it's obviously fast and obviously it has IS so best of both worlds right? What are the pros and cons of each in this choice?
Click to expand...


My advice is don't even think about it Wez. The 70-200 2.8 IS is a great lens in it's own right, but as soon as you start introducing converters behind a zoom it's all downhill.

I have both these lenses and some time ago I did stringent side by side tests of the 70-200 and the 100-400L. Using a 1.4X TC you lose one stop straight away and you need to stop down a couple of stops before the 70-200 begins to equal the 100-400L wide open - so you're looking at f8 straight away. The lens with a 2X TC would obviously be even more compromised.

Thats not to say the lens isn't usable with converters - it is, but in a straightforward comparison of image quality between the two lenses it's really no contest.
 
That's a great find, dod. Here's the bottom line from it:
Bottom line? The 2X with the 70~200mm will do in a pinch, but only when stopped down a couple of stops.
Click to expand...

Wez130, if you want more reach than 200mm, I really don't think a 70-200+TC is the way to go. It will cost you more than a 100-400 and it won't be as good at the long lengths. As you said, the 24-105 plus 100-400 would mean you had all the bases covered with a two-lens solution. That sounds good to me.

And the 100-400 really is good. I was in a similar situation to stylegeo last year. I wanted to get a decent telephoto for a polar bear trip and I tried the 100-400 against the Sigma 50-500 and 170-500 in a shop. The Canon is clearly head and shoulders above them, in image quality, build quality, functionality and ergonomics. Unlike stylgeo I couldn't justify £1,000 on a lens I wouldn't use very much, so I looked into hiring one, and that was difficult, ... and you know the rest. I now "own" a cupboard full of 100-400s. It really is a great lens. (But I still haven't done the polar bear trip!)

Of course you'd be very welcome to hire the Sigma 120-300. It's another lovely lens. It's a bit more expensive again, but the key thing is that it's much bigger and heavier. I could imagine putting a 100-400 on the camera "just in case" but not the 120-300 - to me it feels like more of a "special occasion" lens. But perhaps that's just me.
 
dod said:
Have a look at this

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml
Click to expand...

Hmm, that's a great find and now i had my heart set on the 70-200 F/2.8is, i'm even more undecided grrr.

CT said:
My advice is don't even think about it Wez. The 70-200 2.8 IS is a great lens in it's own right, but as soon as you start introducing converters behind a zoom it's all downhill.

I have both these lenses and some time ago I did stringent side by side tests of the 70-200 and the 100-400L. Using a 1.4X TC you lose one stop straight away and you need to stop down a couple of stops before the 70-200 begins to equal the 100-400L wide open - so you're looking at f8 straight away. The lens with a 2X TC would obviously be even more compromised.

Thats not to say the lens isn't usable with converters - it is, but in a straightforward comparison of image quality between the two lenses it's really no contest.
Click to expand...

As DoD's post explained.

StewartR said:
That's a great find, dod. Here's the bottom line from it:

Wez130, if you want more reach than 200mm, I really don't think a 70-200+TC is the way to go. It will cost you more than a 100-400 and it won't be as good at the long lengths. As you said, the 24-105 plus 100-400 would mean you had all the bases covered with a two-lens solution. That sounds good to me.

And the 100-400 really is good. I was in a similar situation to stylegeo last year. I wanted to get a decent telephoto for a polar bear trip and I tried the 100-400 against the Sigma 50-500 and 170-500 in a shop. The Canon is clearly head and shoulders above them, in image quality, build quality, functionality and ergonomics. Unlike stylgeo I couldn't justify £1,000 on a lens I wouldn't use very much, so I looked into hiring one, and that was difficult, ... and you know the rest. I now "own" a cupboard full of 100-400s. It really is a great lens. (But I still haven't done the polar bear trip!)

Of course you'd be very welcome to hire the Sigma 120-300. It's another lovely lens. It's a bit more expensive again, but the key thing is that it's much bigger and heavier. I could imagine putting a 100-400 on the camera "just in case" but not the 120-300 - to me it feels like more of a "special occasion" lens. But perhaps that's just me.
Click to expand...

The only thing putting me off the 100-400 is the speed and to a point the push pull zoom (which has its advantages too), i think i may just go with that after seeing results of the 70-200 F/2.8 + 2xtc.
 
wez130 said:
The only thing putting me off the 100-400 is the speed and to a point the push pull zoom (which has its advantages too)
Click to expand...
Lots of people seem to be concerned about the push-pull zoom. I don't think they should be. To my mind it is far easier and more intuitive than a twist zoom. Try it and see - with a bit of practice you'll find that it feels almost telepathic, it's so easy. (And of course your left hand stays under the lens, in a good supporting position, all the time - which isn't necessarily the case with twist zooms.)
 
A kinda important question missing from this thread is what are you looking to shoot wes?

A possibly controversial opinion but there is no way I'd be looking to spend big ££'s to catalogue animals at the zoo. Buy the postcards instead, you'll get better shots and all for pennies.

If you want to start taking real wildlife shots then you are going to end up with some major big and expensive and glass at some point, may as well get on with it if that's the road you need to travel.

If you just want a good lens with good reach that will turn its hand to whatever you may need to throw at it..... get the 100-400.

All just in my slanted opinion of course. ;)
 
dazzajl said:
A kinda important question missing from this thread is what are you looking to shoot wes?

A possibly controversial opinion but there is no way I'd be looking to spend big ££'s to catalogue animals at the zoo. Buy the postcards instead, you'll get better shots and all for pennies.

If you want to start taking real wildlife shots then you are going to end up with some major big and expensive and glass at some point, may as well get on with it if that's the road you need to travel.

If you just want a good lens with good reach that will turn its hand to whatever you may need to throw at it..... get the 100-400.

All just in my slanted opinion of course. ;)
Click to expand...


good question, I want a lens that i can use to shoot wildlife and motorsports mainly, something that i don't need a van to transport it in :D and more reach than my 70-200 F/4L so i think that pretty much rounds it down to the 100-400 tbh, i had a play with it yesterday in the shop and it's not too heavy and like i mentioned, the push pull zoom in't that bad, except maybe in dusty areas (vacuum effect).
 
wez130 said:
... the push pull zoom in't that bad, except maybe in dusty areas (vacuum effect).
Click to expand...
Myth.

We've had 100-400s come back from places like Kenya and Tanzania, and believe me they don't come much dustier! And no evidence of any internal dust within the lens.
 
My two-pennorth (for what it's worth)

I had a 100-400 L for a few years, and was a good all round lens-obviously slow compared to a 2.8 lens, but was easy enough to carry around (for me when out dog walking)

The 100-400 was replaced as a carry round lens by Sigma 70-200 f2.8 +1.4 TC, a bit lighter-not so long a reach, but images just as crisp and clear as the 100-400.

I then got a sigma120-300 f2.8, and it's a dream of a lens, mines a pre-DG version, and bought for less than the price of a 100-400 L.

It is a beast-but I do carry it around, cradled over my forearm with the camera body resting in the palm of my hand, and can comfortably walk a few miles with it (which I do most days)

But wouldn't consider an all day outing carrying this lens or even a tramp around the high dales, it's just too much.


But it is hand-holdable as long as the shutter speeds are appropriate, and while out shooting red kites the other day, I had to shoot in short spurts it was just too much strain holding it pointing upwards all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top