What telephoto to buy ....?

I use a 5D with the 24-105mm. The only other lenses I own are the 85mm f/1.8

and 100mm USM Macro; nothing longer than 105mm. Currently, I do not have any

interest in BIF photography, camping out in God knows where to take a picture

of an arctic wolf, etc., but do enjoy snap shot photography and candid

portraiture. I want, not need, a lens longer than 105mm for the occasionaly

time I do need a telephoto or when I go on vacation; something to have in the

bag in case longer is better.

 

The options I was thinking about are the 100-400mm, 300mm f/4 IS or the 200mm

f/2. And, maybe adding a 1.4x TC. I know all the arguments of the prime vs.

the fixed as far as sharpness, portability, convenience. OR, since I'm not in

any hurry to buy anything right now (going to Kauai in 2 weeks and was told by

Puppy and others that my 5D 24-105mm will be more than sufficient) wait to see

if Canon upgrades the 1-4L, comes out with something entirely new, such as a

200-500mm, adds IS to the 400mm f/5.6, etc.....

 

Oh what to do........?

Well I own the 24-105, 85f1.8 and the 100-400. Out of the three I am selling the 100-400 and I just ordered the 70-200 f2.8 IS with a 2XTC this morning.

 

Here is my logic.

 

The 100-400 for what it is, is great. for a lens of this range it really is worth its money. But not as sharp or nearly as fast as I need or want. I find I like the range but get in a mess every time I use it because almost always need it to be a little wider (Probably not a problem on a 5D). But mostly I am just not happy enough with it at the long end wide open, and as a result of all this it simply does not get used very much. I must say the IS is top notch for it to be gen2 and not the newest.

 

So I feel the 70-200 will get more use and with the 2x tele I will still have the range I like(I can never get enough range, limited by only my wallet). I know the 2x will slow it down a bit and it won't be as sharp but I hope it will be at least as sharp as the 100-400 at 400mm f5.6. I guess I will know in a few days ;o)

 

So as you see the 400mm range is secondary to me but I still want it. The only other option to me would be the 400mm f5.6 prime you mentioned. But with out IS off hand is not much of an option. But since it will only be used for those "special time" a tripod would be no big deal to carry.

 

Bottom line for me with the lens is that it was not as sharp as I would like and not fast enough to stop down and still hand hold even with IS.

 

I say again, for what it is (covers 300mm of zoom range) it is a great lens. But I think that 70-200 will stay on the camera more.

 

I have never used any of the other lens.

 

Jason

Since you don't sound like a long lens is really of enormous importance to you, why not try one of the old 75-300mm non-IS lenses? They are available for kit-lens prices and are decent, not outstanding lenses--weakest at the 300mm, but not bad when stopped down in the lower ranges. The 70-300mm IS lens is improved over its ancestors and a lot less $ than those L lenses.

 

For spending money, also consider the 70-300mm DO IS lens. It's of high quality and costs plenty.

 

For primes, I got 400mm preset lenses from Soligor and Spiratone in T-mounts, and they are surprisingly good for lenses that cost less than $30 ;)

 

JDM, the cheapskate

If I already had the 24-105 and wanted something for candid portraiture, I would choose the 135 f/2 plus 1.4x teleconverter.

Canon 200/2 - didn't know that made one of those (but Nikon does). Looks like any of the 70-200 would be a good addition to your current inventory.

For "something to have in the bag in case longer is better," I would not buy a large heavy lens. That leaves out the 100-400, 70-200 f/2.8 and 300 f/4. Maybe you are different, but I would simply not pack around a heavy lens I wasn't sure I would use enough to justify the weight.

 

For me, the 200 f/2.8 with 1.4x TC would be an option. So would either of Canon's two newer 70-300 USM IS lenses. Image quality would still be good and I would not have to lug all those extra pounds for a lens I seldom used.

Snap shots and "candid portraits". Since your portrait shots are not so critical, I'd say look at the 70-300IS and the 70-200F4L. Besides you already have the 85 1.8. Both are reasonable price and size. I own both and the 70-200 is a bit better than the IS one for sharpness and background blur but both are excellent. I think the 100-400 would be to big for you, the barrel extends as well.

I think you mean the 200/2.8.

 

I can vouch that both the 200/2.8 and 300/4 are great lenses, the 200 does not even notice the 1.4X and the 300/4 is still very good with the 1.4X. Both lenses produce very acceptable results with the 2X also.

 

I don't have the 100-400, obviously it has a lot of flexibility advantages.

 

On a practical note, the 100-400 and 300 are quite big heavy lenses (and white), the 200/2.8 is relatively light and compact (as well as black), so depending on what you are doing the 200/2.8 and 1.4X when needed may be less to drag around. (Note on a crop camera the 200/2.8 +1.4X and 300/f4 are very close in sharpness).

 

I don't really approve of candid work with tele lenses, get in there with a moderate wide angle.

Hope some one does not google my post above and decide not to buy my 100-400 because of it!

 

Darn

 

Jason

In reply to some postings... I don't mind spending some $$.... Not that I'm an L lens snob but I do prefer quality and don't mind spending for it. I believe in the old adage...you get what you pay for whether it be wine, women, etc... haha

 

Anyway, I checked out some of the reviews for the newer 70-300mm IS and it seems to get good reviews but I was hoping to go a bit longer. That's why I specifically mentioned the 300mm f/4 IS + TC or the 100-400mm. But, I think I just may wait until after Canons next release of equipment. Like I mentioned, I 'm in no hurry to buy since I do not have a need currently for a telephoto.

I would suggest you rent some of the lenses you are considering. I don't feel confident that you have a clear grasp of field of view for your likely subjects or just how unwieldy some of the choices are for occasional use (and therefore unlikely to make your camera bag). I think Jim's suggestions are worth serious consideration for occasional use.