Final Question (for now): 200 or 300?

[kyle_long2]

This is it, the last question I shall ask before taking the plunge

and purchasing lenses. No more forum-pestering from me, at least not

until my new lenses arrive and begin to confuse me. :)

 

I have an EOS 20D, and I'm trying to find the right mix of lenses to

get me started. I'm going to purchase the EF 100mm macro, either the

50mm macro or 50mm f/1.8 (depending on how much the rest of this

costs, and something else. This question is about the something else.

 

I've been swayed by the prime side of the prime-vs-zoom argument.

The point that won me over is that primes could teach me more about

framing shot than zooms. I just need to choose a focal length. I

can afford the EF 200mm f/2.8L, or I can just barely afford the EF

300mm f/4L IS. For nature photography (landscapes, wildlife if I can

find any, the occasional bird, etc.), which focal length will be of

greater use, the 200 or the 300?

[gary_rhodes_ii]

The 300mm will be better for nature photos, but you can also get the 200 and the 1.4x tele-

converter and have a 200 f/2.8 that turns into a 280 f/4 when you need it too. This combo

should be a little cheaper as well. Personally, this is the way I went a few months back and I

haven't regretted buying the 200 f/2.8, it is incredibly sharp. If you want to lens strictly for

wildlife, you might look into the 400 f/5.6, I have heard that it is sharp and fairly easy to use

without a monopod. It is also cheaper than the 300. I should note that I am just a fellow lens

junkie and have never used either the 300 or 400.

[mike_broderick]

For wildlife shooting, 300 is far better than 200. Twice the image size. The IS will also be handy if you are wicked and shoot without a tripod. Finally, the 300/4 has excellent close-focus and is useful for things like damselflies or butterflies.

 

Since you'll have the 100mm macro, I'd definitely say it is worth going to the 50/1.8 instead of the 50 macro to help fund the 300. I'm assuming that wildlife is fairly important to you when I say this.

 

This would be a good starter kit if you want to go with primes:

 

Something wide (Tokina 17mm, or maybe fudge with one zoom--the kit lens at 18mm)

 

50/1.8

 

100 macro

 

300/4

 

Decent tripod and ballhead (Bogen 3021 is the best affordable tripod).

Adding a 35/2.0 prime to the above would be nice to give you a "normal" FOV if you don't get the kit lens, but not essential in my opinion. A 1.4 tc would be a good purchase down the road.

[mike_broderick]

I posted at about the same time as Gary, but I would agree with him that if wildlife is important to you, the 400/5.6 would also be a good choice, and would actually save some money over the 300/4 IS. You'll need to mostly use it from a tripod, however.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Kyle,

 

I have a friend that swears by the 300mm f4.0L IS along with the 1.4X Tele-Converter. So, this combination will get you out to 420mm and an f5.6. Many others on this forum have suggested this same combo many times.

 

//Chuck

[John Crowe]

I have not read all your posts from beginning to end so I apologize if I miss something or repeat something. My first question is why 2 expensive macro lenses? If you have settled on getting the 100 Macro for macro work and short telephoto then save yourself lots of bucks at the 50mm focal length and simply get the faster 50mm f1.8. Now you would have money to truly consider the 300 f4 L IS.

 

 

I have always had wideangle lenses plus 50mm and 200mm lenses, with an 85mm lens thrown in the mix for awhile. I am now back to the wideangles plus 50mm and 200mm. So I am used to thinking in terms of the 200mm focal length and it has always been one of my most used lenses. I tend to go by the rule of doubling focal lengths if using prime lenses. So my typical ideal set would revolve around, 14mm, 28mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm and 400mm. As it so happens I don't use the 70mm to 199mm range very often even with the zooms I have had or have. I too have often considered the 300/4 L IS or not. It's just that the 200 is that much easier to carry around, and that little bit faster when I need to stop moving objects, whether they be leaves, cars, or people. I had a handholdable 400mm lens for awhile and it sure was handy so I understand the draw of the 300mm lens being at least easier than that lens for handholding and the addition of IS in that regard. I would like to add that I am used to discussing focal lengths with respect to film and I have only just started shooting with a 10D so the 1.6x factor must be taken into consideration. In doing so I think the 200mm actually becomes a more useful focal length for general photography but when you start talking about birding and wildlife then that gives the nod to the 300mm on the 20D. You have a tough decision between these two lenses! For myself, who does a lot of sports and landscapes on film and DSLR, I still tend to the 50, 100, 200 with the thought of adding a 400 down the road. Best of luck.

[jim_larson1]

Clearly the 300/4L-IS is better for wildlife (and airshows). . .but nothing else. 300 on a 20D is pretty long.

 

Given the choice of 300 or 200. . . .I might go for the 200. With a 1.4 TC :)

 

Note that the whole "framing" argument falls a bit flat to me when talking about the telephoto's. Usually. . .I can't foot zoom the necessary 50' due to walls, cliffs, or rivers.

 

I personally went for the 70-200/4L. Then got a 1.4TC. Considering the 300/4L-IS in the future to complement the set.

[pto189]

Buy 300m f/4L IS now and 1.4 TC later.

[kyle_long2]

Thanks... as always, very informative and helpful answers. And John, no need to apologize for not having read my posts! I'm not quite egotistical enough to think that you folks are hanging on my every word. :) But some people have been kind enough to reply to every question I've asked. And I'm sure that by now my constant questioning of every minute detail of every review must be rather irritating. It's annoying *me*, after all. :)

 

Fortunately, I believe it is finally at an end. The 200mm lens will, I think, be the better choice for me, though it is significantly less awe-inspiring that the big off-white monstrosity that is the 300mm. As you've all said, the 300mm (or preferably the 400mm) is ideal for wildlife photography, and if that's more important to me I should buy that lens. But it would be wiser of me, I think, to develop some small amount of skill in that area first.

 

So I'll get the 200mm now (which has the added benefit that it will fit into the camera pack I've chosen, the LowePro CompuRover), and the 400mm maybe next year, once I know what I'm doing. Or at least can guess at what I'm doing.

 

Thanks again, everyone!

[taner]

From a strictly theoretical perspective, 'x' focal length is better than the 'y' focal length argument is absolutely meaningless. Having said that, I can relate to your dilemma, since I am not a pro, and the meaningful argument (from a pro's perspective) - you use whatever focal length the job requires - does not apply to me either. For example, I find that the the creative possibilities (compressed landscapes, airshows and other sporting events come to mind) really open up once you step up to 300 and beyond from 200. I used both 200 and 300 primes (back in my film days, with the manual focus Minolta system), and without a TC, 200 was a bit on the lame side. I guess that is why a lot of people go for the 100-400 L lens, despite the compromises this zoom's optics involve. I say, go for the 300/4L IS if you can afford one lens only. Or, go for both the 200/2.8L and the 400/5.6L if you can afford both (price and weight...). Good Luck.

[mcgarity]

I own both the EF 70-200mm f4L and the EF 300mm f4L IS. If I had to choose just one, the 300mm would win hands down every time. Its practically welded to a EF 1.4 TC and stays mounted to my camera most of the time. The 70-200 is a good focal range but even with a TC its not a substitute for the 300mm and TC combo. If you are shooting wildlife you never have enough focal length.

[yakim_peled1]

I had both and they are very different. I had to sell them both when I switched to digital and now that I have the 70-300 IS, I miss them dearly. Of the two, the 300/4 IS is much more suitable for wildlife because of it's longer reach and IS. I reached 1/60 hand-held with it. That said, I got to 1/8! with the 70-300 IS. Yes, it is too light, unbalanced on my 1D and build quality is awful but until I can afford the 70-200/2.8 IS, this one stays in my bag.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[rob_murray]

I've been swayed by the prime side of the prime-vs-zoom argument. The point that won me over is that primes could teach me more about framing shot than zooms.

 

 

Not sure I follow this, with a zoom you decide the framing with a prime it decides for you. Many times you will not be able to move backwards or forwards enough to get the framing you need. Your going to have some huge gaps in your lens coverage with no wideangle, 50, 100, then 300mm lenses. The 300mm is great even with the 1.4x on it but if you dont know if you can find any wildlife or birds, I would not buy it now. Not sure what the rest of your posts were but I hope you put a decent tripod on this list.

[steve torelli]

Kyle,

Good luck with your lens choices.I would say to you though, that I think being dogmatic about prime lenses is very limiting. They both have their place. As far as framing a shot, I don't agree that you'll learn more with a prime over a zoom. The scene in your viewfinder is the same whether you've walked back and forth or zoomed in and out to attain it. And, sometimes you just don't have the room to move up or back to get the perspective you want. The lenses you are considering will serve you well,I have primes and zooms and wouldn't want to eliminate either of them as a group. There are some pretty damn good zooms out there these days. Again, good luck.

[kyle_long2]

I have added a decent tripod, the Bogen/Manfrotto 3221 "Wilderness" with a decent ball head (same manufacturer, and holds as much weight as the tripod). I've also decided to buy both the 200 and 400 lenses, and to scratch a new laptop computer from my list. I'd only have to replace it in three or four years, anyway. :)

[brad_w]

Wildlife is one of the few times when you need specific glass and the 300 is the way go. It

can also be useful for general photography too, but you'll get a pretty stylized look - flat and

tight.

 

Financially, I'd go with the 50/1.8 and the 300 over the 50 macro. -b