Reading mode: Light Dark

lens suggestion

Go to last post
E

emshofk

Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Sacramento, US
I am a self taught budding serious amature. I have recently left the world of film cameras and purchased a 40D. It came with the standard 28-135 lens and i have had some fun getting to know the new camera body. I am ready to plunk down some dough for a longer lens so i can reach out a bit. I have been looking at the f2.8 70-200 IS and the 100-400 f4.5 IS lenses. The first overlaps my current lens somewhat but is a much better lens. The 100-400 lens reaches out a lot farther but I wonder about the restricted f-stop size. I know there are third party lenses out there which are quite respectable as well and i'm not adverse to them but I tend to lean toward Canon and their IS line of lenses. Any suggestions or opinions?
 
Which end of the focal range do you expect to live at? If you're going to play in the near 200 range or less you should get the 70-200 and a TC to cover the rest of the range when you need it. If you're birding out at 400 all the time you'll probably want the 100-400.

Also, don't forget that there is a canon SLR Lens talk forum a couple down from here.
 
I have them both.

The 70-200 is my most used lense. Its focal length seems to cover things that I find of interest. Also the f2.8 capability also helps often for low light shooting.

That being said, the 100-400 is used fairly often. Many times I am out roaming the country side and I find myself drawn to elements in the scenery rather than the grand views. Yes the slower speed of this lense can be an issue depending on what you like to do.
 
--I can only afford one of the two at this time. my dilemma for now is this,

do I purchase a 70-200 and a 1.4x or do I get the 100-400. I have a 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens already but it lacks reach and well it stops at 3.5. I am leaning toward the 100-400 but that f2.8 keeps dragging me back to the 70-200 lens. Oh My head. Any last thoughts before I plunk down the dough?
 
emshofk said:
--I can only afford one of the two at this time. my dilemma for now
is this,
do I purchase a 70-200 and a 1.4x or do I get the 100-400. I have a
28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens already but it lacks reach and well it
stops at 3.5. I am leaning toward the 100-400 but that f2.8 keeps
dragging me back to the 70-200 lens. Oh My head. Any last thoughts
before I plunk down the dough?
Click to expand...
Most objects are three dimensional and you will have to stop down some to capture that depth. For example, if a duck is 20 or 25 feet from me I normally have the aperture set to f/9 or f/10. If that duck is six feet from me I stop down to f/14 to get both the front of a beak and the eyes in focus. The reason I'm telling you about this is "normally" you will be shooting stopped down and the f/5.6 of the 100-400 will not limit you (assuming you are shooting under typical outdoor/daylight conditions).

OTOH if you are going to shoot indoors minus flash then an f/2.8 lens might do you some good either because the illumination is poor or because you want to reduce the DOF on purpose to de-focus a cluttered background. That said, be aware most folks would prefer really fast primes for indoor shooting minus flash.

For wildlife my bread-and-butter lens is the 100-400 on a 40D. For scenery I use a 17-40 on a 1DmkII. For those "I don't know in advance what might be encountered" situations (e.g. a cruise to who knows where) my choice is the 28-135 and either a 30D or 40D.

So, bottom line, IMO you will be thrilled with a 100-400 in your bag; a nice feature of this lens is the push-pull design which shortens the physical length of the lens when you throw it in a bag.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
 
--Thanks JAK. You really helped. 100-400 it is. It funny you mentioned cruises. I'm headed off to europe next summer. I plan to take a lot of pictures. I hope I get some that are more than ho hum vacation photos.
 
I jumped into SLR photography two months ago, with a 40D, a sigma EX 18-50 2.8, canon 85 1.8, and canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 .

It is now clear that anything less bright than 2.8 is unusable for the flashless candids I take in church each week, due to subject motion blur. I probably can never do a wedding with this lens. Even 2.8 is skating on thin ice. So I am waiting and saving for the 70-200 2.8 .

If you have a dimmish venue that you repeatedly photograph, you should evaluate your f-stop needs there.

Got some decent shots of chipmunks, though.

Dave3814
 
emshofk said:
--Thanks JAK. You really helped. 100-400 it is. It funny you
mentioned cruises. I'm headed off to europe next summer. I plan to
take a lot of pictures. I hope I get some that are more than ho hum
vacation photos.
Click to expand...
For cruises I try to travel light and only take one body (the 40D is today's preference) and lens (28-135); the only exception to this was when we took a land/sea cruise to Alaska. On the Alaska land/cruise I packed a second body with the 100-400 because one of the land stops was Denali NP and of course there was a good possibility for wildlife opportunities there.

I do have a suggestion for you to think about "if" you decide to go with the 28-135 as your only lens on your Mediterranean cruise. I've found the 28-135 gives me the reach necessary for many shots were foot zooming is out of the question (especially if you are on the ship). Obviously, on occasion you will find the 28-135 will not give you sufficient FOV. One thing to keep in mind if you need a wider FOV is to shoot a pano sequence and stitch up the shots when you get back home.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
 
--Thanks for the tips. I went on line last night and looked at your gallery. very beautiful. Then ordered the 100-400 as i love wildlife photos and on your suggestion i also purchased 17-40 wide angle. I received a call from the company this afternoon to confirm the order and they were trying to talk me into a couple of different Sigma lenses. I was driving at the time and he was talking very fast so i dont have all the perticulars right now but he did say somthing that i had not considered. He said that because of the 1.6 to 1 on my 40D not only will a lens appear to magnify more than advertised but it will also push the maximum fstop of 4 on the 100-400 to something more like 6. Is it true that the conversion factor will cause a loss in fstop? I have always been a purest but what is you opinion of sigma lenses? The order is on hold for now.
 
Where are you ordering this from?
 
emshofk said:
--Thanks for the tips. I went on line last night and looked at your
gallery. very beautiful. Then ordered the 100-400 as i love wildlife
photos and on your suggestion i also purchased 17-40 wide angle. I
received a call from the company this afternoon to confirm the order
and they were trying to talk me into a couple of different Sigma
lenses. I was driving at the time and he was talking very fast so i
dont have all the perticulars right now but he did say somthing that
i had not considered. He said that because of the 1.6 to 1 on my 40D
not only will a lens appear to magnify more than advertised but it
will also push the maximum fstop of 4 on the 100-400 to something
more like 6. Is it true that the conversion factor will cause a loss
in fstop? I have always been a purest but what is you opinion of
sigma lenses? The order is on hold for now.
Click to expand...
Forget the sales person, he is trying to bait and switch you. If you are not, I suggest you try dealing with B&H, Adorama, Canoga, or Roberts Imaging; all are reputable on-line retailers.

First off the bat, there is a "digital magnification" provided the pixel density works in your favor. Also, the sales person is full of sh!t regarding f/stop; that doesn't change as a function of sensor size. What does change as a function is size is DOF.

Just to make your life a little easier here is a table I came up with for the Canon line-up of cameras to give you an idea of what the crop factors can do for you as you go from FF down to 1.6X size sensors; note the effect that pixel density has on the final resolution (after cropping a larger sensors size down to that of a smaller sensor).



Oh, one more thing, read the words here; they may give you a better idea of what is going on with the chart above.

Also, please look at these two DOF comparisons (be sure and read the words).

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/image/93301576/original
http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/image/93961198/original

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
 
--I thought so. I work around car salesman all the time and I can recognise the bait and switch tactics. But I thought I would ask anyway. I have delt with Adorama and B&H before. I only went to sonic because of the price difference. Thanks again for the tips and your time. By the way. that Bison photo in your gallery is awsome. took some steady nerves to face that big boy down.
 
using the facilities with a huge bison just on the other side of the thin wall from me. Had to work my way past him to get in there. Very disconcerting listening to one of those things from a couple of feet away.

Was in William O'Brien state park in Minnesota one day. Turned onto a trail and heard what I thought was thunder. Turned around and saw about 50 buffalo running towards me. Ran like heck back the way I came. At the end of the herd was a guy on a 4 wheeler driving them back to his farm. "***** to the rangers", he yelled in passing.

WO'B doesn't feature Buffalo. They had just got loose from his farm.

Big animals.
 
exciting. hard to concentrate i bet when you here huffing and puffing outside the bathroom.

I read a long thread about how awful the canon 40d and lenses are. apparently there are a lot of unsatisfied people out there who have had to send their gear in for repair/calibration. some several times over. Makes me a bit nervous. I just went digital after a long long run with my trusty AE1 which i got in about 1975. I really loved that camera. Only in the shop one time in all those years. It finally gave out for good just recently. i had such good luck with it i figured i couldn't go wrong buying another canon. i chose the 40d. this was the best i could afford at the time. after reading all those negative comments i'm a bit apprehnsive about my purchase.
 
Best canon I've ever owned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top