70-200f/4 IS L + 1.4tc or 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS L?

Started Jan 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
crazybadger
Senior MemberPosts: 1,222
Like?
Re: 70-200f/4 IS L + 1.4tc or 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS L?
In reply to happysnapper64, Jan 25, 2013

happysnapper64 wrote:

Matbe I am a bit to blame here, as I didn't specify things propperly. So, I have the 70-200f/4 IS L, & am keen to do some bird & wildlife/zoo/safari park photography. [ I emphasize safari PARK, near my home in UK, not safari in Africa ] I also have a Sigma 120-400 OS which is fairly good up to around 340mm, but is also a bit heavy. That is why I was thinking of the 300f/4 as I could use the 1.4X on both if I chose to do so. Plus, my wife comes with me on many occasions & she could use 1 combo with her 60D, say the 70-200+tc, & I could use the 300. I know 300 isn't 400 [duh!] but maybe the crop factor would produce sharper images? When I go by myself, I would take both the zoom & the 300, Plus the tc. That will cover just about all my needs. Sorry if I confused things with my ommisions. I didn't expect so many replies, & am very gratefull for your input.

-- hide signature --

lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

Oh don't apologise happy. Definately not your fault. I'm sorry for hijacking things a little

Like you I visit a lot of zoos/safaris. I teach a variety of Biology courses (vertebrate zoology, animal bahaviour), and I use a LOT of pictures of various animals in my courses. Since I like photography I've slowly been making my own collection of pictures and short video clips from various zoos for use in my courses. I have a deal with my better half that whenever we visit a city, we spend a few days visiting museums/art galleries for her, and a day or two in zoos/aquariums for me :). Worked out well so far.

Anyway...I already had the 100-400 (a good copy) before I picked up the 70-300L. But I found that usually I was shooting under the 400 limit in these situations. I had checked out both the 70-200's and found them excellent lenses just lacking in reach a little. When the 70-300 came out I took a look but was initially scared off by some "professional review sites". But the overwhelming positive talk from actual users reassured me and I gave it a shot. Fantastic lens. Great. I could have easily returned it and stuck with the 100-400 but I didn't. It is every bit as good (actually I find a little better), lighter, smaller, easier to carry package than the 100-400. The only problem I have with it is the f4-5.6 (same as the 100-400). It isn't a deal breaker but obviously it isn't an f2.8. In dim light (such as indoor dimly lit exhibits) having a few extra stops would be nice. Also having the ability to isolate the subject a little better would be good. But the 70-200f4 is not going to change that for me, the f2.8 would. But then I'll lack range a little. I could go with a 70-200 f2.8 and a TC and have considered it. But then I have to mess around with taking the TC on and off all the time. Not always a conveniant thing to do in a dusty wildlife saffari type setting.

Anyway...that's my take. The 70-300L has been ideal for my situation...although maybe I'm just not discerning enough (sorry...sarcasm lowest form of whit and all )

Good luck. Cheers Mike

PS...with regard to the low light...that's one reason I've been paying close attention to the 6D reports lately. The 7D for goodlight/BIF/ action and the 6D for low light/high iso.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow