 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006canon zoom choice
I want to buy a good quality Canon zoom lens for my new 5D. Which would you recommend, a 70-200 f2.8 with a 2X extender, or a 100-400 f4.5/5.6? Or something else? My main interest is nature photography, especially close up and macro (I have a macro for that), but I am planning a trip to Costa Rica in the late winter. My budget for the lens is approximately $1300. Marcus > I want to buy a good quality Canon zoom lens for my new 5D. Which would you > recommend, a 70-200 f2.8 with a 2X extender, or a 100-400 f4.5/5.6? Or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Marcus I'd think I'd take the 70-200 with the 2x over the 100-400. Then you've got a bright short tele with the option of having a 140-400 f5.6 when you need the longer range.  SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. >> I want to buy a good quality Canon zoom lens for my new 5D. Which would you >> recommend, a 70-200 f2.8 with a 2X extender, or a 100-400 f4.5/5.6? Or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >got a bright short tele with the option of having a 140-400 f5.6 when >you need the longer range. The 2x extended is known for introducing softness when used with otherwise sharp lenses - the 100-400 will be much sharper than the 70-200 with the 2x extender. jc Signature"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA >>> I want to buy a good quality Canon zoom lens for my new 5D. Which would >>> you [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > jc Yeah, but the 100-400 absolutely sucks at 200mm and f2.8... ;-) I have both, and the 70-200 is a better lens, it just depends on where the OP will spend most of his time, 70-200mm or 200-400mm, and if the f2.8 is that critical. I've never used a 2x with my 70-200, since I have the 100-400, but a buddy of mine does. When we've shot the same thing, side by side, your observation is borne out, the 100-400 is sharper than the 70-200/2x combination. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>> I want to buy a good quality Canon zoom lens for my new 5D. Which would >>>> you [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > by side, your observation is borne out, the 100-400 is sharper than the > 70-200/2x combination. Thanks for the advice and information. I think I'll go with the 70-200 and the 1.4X and add a 2X for emergency use. Then start saving for the 100-400! Marcus >>>>> I want to buy a good quality Canon zoom lens for my new 5D. Which >>>>> would you [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Marcus That's probably the best course. The 70-200 produces more than acceptable images with the 2x converter, and it gives you the flexibility to get to f2.8 up to 200mm, so I think that's advantageous. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Thanks for the advice and information. I think I'll go with the 70-200 and > the 1.4X and add a 2X for emergency use. Then start saving for the 100-400! Unless you need to zoom a lot, how about saving for one of EF 300mm 2.8 L IS USM EF 300mm 4.0 L IS USM EF 400mm 2.8 L IS USM EF 400mm 4.0 DO IS USM EF 400mm 5.6 L USM OK, the f/2.8 are rather expensive, the 400mm one even more so, but all but the 400mm f/5.6 can take the 1.4x extender and keep AF on all Canon bodies. And should even then be better than the 100-400mm. -Wolfgang >>>>> I want to buy a good quality Canon zoom lens for my new 5D. Which >>>>> would you [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Marcus If you buy the 70-200, and adds the 14X extender, buying a 10-400 lens is just stupid IMO. I would much more prefer buing a long tele with IS, and use that for the shots wich need more zoom. Adding a 300mm 2.8 or 300mm 4 IS would be a better option then to buy the 100-400. Remember that using the 1.4X on the 300mm would give you about 420mm 5.6. Gunnar >Yeah, but the 100-400 absolutely sucks at 200mm and f2.8... ;-) I have >both, and the 70-200 is a better lens I own the 70-200 f2.8 IS and love it too. :-) I have rented/borrowed the 100-400 - it's an OK lens but I'm a snob for fast glass. I'm considering which TC to buy, after reading all the reviews about the 2x TC I'm passing on it - I'll get the 1.4x instead. My sweetie just bought a 1DMII and he's looking at buying the 100-400. He needs that added reach for sports photography (he shoots a lot of soccer), and he doesn't want/need the f2.8 as much as I do. jc Signature"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA >I want to buy a good quality Canon zoom lens for my new 5D. Which >would you recommend, a 70-200 f2.8 with a 2X extender, or a 100-400 >f4.5/5.6? I'd take the 70-200...the large aperture and great image quality makes it worthwhile. But I'm not sure you would want to use a 2x extender unless you're willing to lose some image quality. If you can swing it, consider the 1.4x and 2x extenders. That way the 1.4x will give you good image quality and still give you 280mm of reach. And of course, you could always stack the extenders for 560mm. :-) > something else? My main interest is nature photography, especially > close up and macro (I have a macro for that), but I am planning a > trip to Costa Rica in the late winter. My budget for the lens is > approximately $1300. Costa Rica huh? Looking to snap some genetically engineered dinos? > And of course, you could always stack the extenders for 560mm. Not the ones made by Canon.... >> And of course, you could always stack the extenders for 560mm. > > Not the ones made by Canon.... Oh yeah, I remember something about them not working properly. Is it a mounting issue or just loss of autofocus? >>> And of course, you could always stack the extenders for 560mm. >> >> Not the ones made by Canon.... > > Oh yeah, I remember something about them not working properly. Is it a > mounting issue or just loss of autofocus? Mounting >>>> And of course, you could always stack the extenders for 560mm. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mounting Try Tamron/Kenko ones then, they don't have this problem and are of quite good optical quality. >>>>>And of course, you could always stack the extenders for 560mm. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Try Tamron/Kenko ones then, they don't have this problem and are > of quite good optical quality. Sorry not Canon so OT but... I recently got a Nikon TC-14E 1.4x and noticed it does not stack with my TC-20E II 2x because of an intentional tab put in to prevent that. I don't know why they do it, maybe the focal length wouldn't be reported correctly but it might be fun to play with. Apparently you can get them modified but then lose metering. I don't think I could use 3rd party due to the AF-S in-lense focus and VR although the Kenko extension tubes are supposed to work where the Nikon tubes don't do VR. BTW I got the 1.4 used for $44 with a dent I straightened out. The 2x cost something like $400 new and is about 4x the length. The 2x is pretty soft at 400mm on my 70-200 but works great on the 105 macro for closeups or as a 210mm tele it's better than the 70-200. The 70-200 at 400 is interesting for crazy shallow DOF semi-closeups but for sharpness the 1.4x is much better. I wonder if a 3rd party TC could be stacked with these and still control the aperture even if metering didn't work. >>>>>>And of course, you could always stack the extenders for 560mm. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > better. I wonder if a 3rd party TC could be stacked with these and still > control the aperture even if metering didn't work. If you grind off the "tab" from the extenders, you then can stack them easily as long as you watch carefully for the "element interference" when stacked. They are made that way to match the rear bayonet design on the AF-S lenses for which they are designed. After removal, they will mount to all Nikkors but will still only auto-focus on the AF-S lenses as they lack the "drive shaft" focus coupling needed for the AF-D and other "normal" auto-focus Nikkors. You loose no metering at all with this modification as long as you start with a "fast" AF-S lens. As you stack them and then mount them on the lens, keep the overall effective aperture in mind. In some cases, it will get small enough that this will cause the auto-focusing to be erratic through light loss. You mention "Nikon tubes". No Nikon brand extension tubes carry either the electrical connections or the "drive shaft" for auto-focus. There is no auto-focus or VR with any Nikon brand extension tubes. Your first paragraph starts off talking about teleconverters and finishes up on extension tubes. Which is it? Bob > Your first paragraph starts off talking about teleconverters and finishes up > on extension tubes. Which is it? Both, thanks for the info! I'll look into the grinding off the tabs idea for the $44 teleconverter, there is no protrusion problem. Hmmm my 105/2.8 macro is 210 f/5.6 at 2x and would be 294mm f/? at another 1.4x. The extension tube question is using VR for insects at 200mm with a 70-200/2.8 for working at a distance of a couple feet or so in full sun with some ISO boost. >> Your first paragraph starts off talking about teleconverters and finishes >> up on extension tubes. Which is it? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 70-200/2.8 for working at a distance of a couple feet or so in full sun > with some ISO boost. If you mount the 1.4 TC-14E on the lens, then decide to mount the TC-20E on that combo, the front element of the TC-20E will collide with the rear element of the TC-14E. Not a good plan. Even the old Canon trick of mounting an extension tube between the two teleconverters won't work well. It will allow the mounting, but you will lose all electrical connections with the camera, so everything becomes manual. Works OK with tripod mounted Macro work, but in real world use is a pain! If you have appropriate clearance with the rear element of the lens (watch it carefully if it is a zoom -- check the full range of movement) and mount the TC-20E to the lens -- then you can mount the TC-14E to that combo -- and that to the camera body with no problem -- if extremely high quality is not your goal. It will yield surprising results though if the lens is of top quality to start with. Good luck and let us know how it goes!! Bob |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.