Lens dilema

Hello,

I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
(particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I would
like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.

I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.

Many thanks.

embee wrote:
Hello,

I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very
happy with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal
length I currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me
adequately in the past. However, I would like to invest in a better
piece of glass (particulary for candids, sport and the occassional
wildlife shot). I would like to buy an L series lens which has
stabilisation.
I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the
EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered
if anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of
either/both of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.

Many thanks.

I can't offer any advice from personal knowledge of either lens, but I
can say I have never been particularly fond of any extenders from the
standpoint of quality. While the better ones do sever well as an economical
approach, they never seem to equal a good lens and using them with zooms
just seems to bring out the worst of both.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

A dilemma is a problem offering two solutions, neither of which is
acceptable. I don't think that this word applies in your case.

Doug


"embee" wrote in message
...


Hello,

I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
(particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I
would like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.

I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.

Many thanks.

Ed Ruf wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:31:57 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "embee"
wrote:

I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
(particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I would
like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.

I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.

Ask yourself what fraction of your shots would be taken using the
200-400mm range. Also ask yourself for the fraction taken using 200mm
and below does the f/2.8 give you an advantage.

I've shot a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 stabilized lens with a 2x converter
for years now. But the f/2.8 lens by itself comes in very handy on
it's own at times.

Ed has a good point. I have the 70-200 IS lens, with a 1.4 extender. The
2x gets a bit soft, or did on my 20D. Haven't tried one (2x) with the
5D, but doubt I will, as the 20D is very active, and of course has the
1.6 crop factor; I turned in the 2x and kept the 1.4x. I like the combos
very much, btw.

--
John McWilliams

"Doug Robbins" wrote in message
...
A dilemma is a problem offering two solutions, neither of which is
acceptable. I don't think that this word applies in your case.

Doug

In the sense that, whichever lens I buy, my bank balance will be more than a
thousand UK pounds lighter, I consider it an entirely appropriate word to
use ;-)

Many thanks

Do you need stabilization?
Do you try to handhold at focal lengths greater than 200mm with big glass
like your Sigma?
What is it about the Sigma that you do not like that you think Canon glass
will be all that much better?
Unless you are hiding inside a panel truck lenses like this are not exactly
inconspicuous for candid shooting . . .

"bwoag" wrote in message
et...
Do you need stabilization?

Yes. It works, I like it.

Do you try to handhold at focal lengths greater than 200mm with big glass
like your Sigma?

Not if I can help it, but there have been occassions when I have had to
handhold (I've been to sports events where tripds and monopods are not
allowed, for example.)

What is it about the Sigma that you do not like that you think Canon glass
will be all that much better?

I have used Sigma exclusively in the past, but am now converting to Canon at
all focal lengths. I am much happier with the image quality from Canon
lenses, especially L series. Contrast and colour are superior, and there is
less aberration and vignetting. I am not criticising Sigma - they generally
offer good lenses for the price. It's just that I have found I get far
better results using Canon lenses and now I'm prepared to stump up the cash.

Unless you are hiding inside a panel truck lenses like this are not
exactly inconspicuous for candid shooting . . .

My understanding of a candid photo is one that's informal and unposed. The
physical size of a lens shouldn't matter - I'm not taking "secret" shots. I
will mostly be doing wedding candids and everybody there will know what I am
up to!

Many thanks.

"embee" wrote in message
...


Hello,

I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
(particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I
would like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.

I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.

Many thanks.


The EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM is a fabulous lens for candid portrait work at
weddings and other gatherings. With f2.8 you can get beautiful bokeh.

"Marten" wrote in message
news:5S6Zg.27478$P7.7307@edtnps89...



The EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM is a fabulous lens for candid portrait work at
weddings and other gatherings. With f2.8 you can get beautiful bokeh.


Thank you for that - do you have any experience of using it with a 2x
converter? I must admit, this is the lens I would choose if it wasn't for
the fact I sometimes need more reach.

embee wrote:

I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
(particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I would
like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.

I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.

I have a 1D M II and have all three lenses you mention (24-105, 70-200
f/2.8 L IS, 100-400). Basically the 70-200 is optically superior to
the 100-400, no doubt about that. We rarely use the 100-400 because of
this since at f/5.6 and 400 mm it's just not a quality lens, though
with the 1.3x sensor you get rid of most of the corner problems at f/8.


However if you pop a 2x on the 70-200 then the image quality of this
setup is inferior to the 100-400 when shot at 400, to give you an idea
of how much you lose with the 2x.

On the other hand with the 1.4x on the 70-200 you still have pretty
high image quality, I've found.

So it boils down to how badly do you need to go over say 280 mm (which
is where you'll be with the 70-200 and the 1.4x).

If you can give up IS then a good solution at this same basic price
point is to get the 70-200 f/4 L and the 400 f/5.6 L. My wife has
these two lenses and does very well with them.

Or the 70-200 f/4 plus the 300 f/4 L IS if you need/want IS with a
longer lens, then with the 1.4x (which will give good results on both
of these lenses) you're covered from 70 mm to 420 mm.

Or if you can spend more get the new 70-200 f/4 L IS with even greater
IS sensitivity, according to Canon, and then one of the longer lenses
mentioned. But the f/4 IS is selling at a hefty premium over the
non-IS f/4 right now.

I'm probably not helping with your decision by mentioning these new
lenses, but any combination of these will give better image quality
than the 100-400.

Here's a site that compares the image quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
w/ 2x to the 100-400 ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml ...
elsewhere on this site there's a test of the 100-400 vs the 400 f/5.6 L
too. To sum up, the 100-400 at 400 beat the 70-200 w/2x combo but lost
to the straight 400 f/5.6 L ...

Bill