Lenses and Questions.

[coolcheech]

This is a two part question.

 

I currently own the 70-200 2.8 (No IS). That being said I've been reading

reviews on the 100mm 2.8 Macro, and even though I don't shoot macro (and don't

really want to) I thought this would be a good walk-around lens to get (for

$350, barely used). But before shelling out the money I decided to give myself

a day to think it over and that leads me to here. Even with all the good

reviews is it still worth it over my 70-200? And would I even need it,

considering I don't shoot macro? I'm starting to doubt it.

 

2nd part of my confusion. I want more reach. I've been debating over the 300mm

4.0L IS and the 400mm 5.6L. From what I've read they both seem to be pretty

even in the IQ department, it's just a reach thing. Now I've seen some good

reviews on the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS, so that kind-of throws another lens into

the mix. Right now of the 3, I think the 300mm is the way to go, it's faster

and I can get more reach with the 1.4x.

 

So if anyone has any advice, or can tell me if my thought are heading in the

right direction, I'd appreciate it.

 

Thanks,

Christian

[ken munn]

The 70-200 doesn't qualify as a walk-around lens in my book; too big, too heavy, too

conspicuous. But neither does the 100 macro; both too long and too short much of the time.

 

You don't say which sensor size you have, but I'd suggest you look at a 24 or 28 to 80 or 105

or 135 (35mm equivalent) in the walk-around role.

[coolcheech]

I've got a 1.6 crop factor(XT). As far as my lens go, I have the 17-40mm, 50mm, and 70-200mm. As I sat here and pondered away, I've come to realize that I don't need the 100mm. And that a 300mm in the future might be money better spent. For the 100mm range my 70-200mm is just fine, and my reason for wanting the 100mm was just to get a prime lens; I don't think that it was smart thinking.

[William Michael]

>>> I've been debating over the 300mm 4.0L IS and the 400mm 5.6L. <<<

 

I prefer to invest in the EF300F4.0L IS USM and a x1.4MkII than buy the EF 400mm F5.6L.

 

I see the 300/F4 + extender a far more flexible combination for general use.

 

 

***

 

 

>>> For the 100mm range my 70-200mm is just fine, and my reason for wanting the 100mm was just to get a prime lens; I don't think that it was smart thinking. <<<

 

 

I agree.

 

Considering your lens cache and APS-C format, getting the 100macro is smart thinking ONLY if you want a macro lens (firstly) and you want it to (secondly) double as a tight portrait lens, or possible sports lens etc, WITHOUT having to pull out your 70 to 200F2.8 zoom.

 

 

***

 

>>> was just to get a prime lens; <<<

 

 

A more flexible general prime lens to add to your kit would be a fast 28mm, 30mm, or 35mm, which gives you around a normal FoV (for `walk about` etc):

 

and / or

 

 

the EF 85F1.8, 100F2 or 135F2L if you like tight portraiture, sports capture, concerts, stage shows and the like; although these three lenses are in the 70 to 200 range the kicker is the extra speed.

 

 

WW

[m_barbu1]

You don't need that 100mm, if you're not going to do macro. Since that 300mm is faster, I would pick it, before the 400mm. But, if you need 400mm, and aren't going to spend the money for the f/2.8 version, the f/5.6 version is pretty much your only option. I was seriously disappointed with the quality of the 100-400. IMO, it is undeserving of the L designation. It is nowhere near as sharp as your 70-200, and I think you'll be disappointed with it. Overall, I have difficulty walking around with just one lens. I usually end up having one on a body, and carrying at least one other. In your case, I'd probably have the 17-40 and 70-200 as my walk-around "kit".

[tdigi]

If you have no need at all for macro the 100 2.0 would be a better choice. From what I can

see you really do not have a good walk around lens. Maybe something like a Tamron 28 - 75

2.8 which has a macro ( or a close zoom ) at the end. Its affordable and I use mine as my

general walk around and I am very happy with it.

[ajb2222]

Why not just by a 2x extender? It would give you the 400 reach with your 70-200.

[chris_mills1]

Part 1:

I have both the 70-200/2.8 (IS) and the 100/2.8 macro. I use them both, but in completely different circumstances.

 

As I'm sure you are aware, the 70-200/2.8 is a big, heavy lens. Comparatively speaking, the 100/2.8 is tiny. Obviously if I'm headed somewhere I know I'm going to need the 70-200, that's what I bring (usually along with the 35/1.4 to cover the short end). However, the 70-200/2.8 is way too big to use as a walk-around. For that, I end up going with the 100/2.8 about half the time (with the 35/1.4 filling in most of the rest).

 

The 100/2.8 macro USM is small, light, extremely sharp, focuses quickly and lets you get right up to the subject if you want to. The only drawback is that it can be a little too sharp for formal portraits (where the subject is going to complain about wrinkle lines). Anyway, I highly recommend it. It is one of Canon's real bargains.

 

Part 2:

I rented the 300/4 IS and the 400/5.6 a few years ago to try and decide which one to buy. I ended up getting the 400/5.6. My reasoning was that the 70-200 plus the 1.4x tele-converter gave me a 300/4 IS equivalent that was still pretty sharp, but neither the 70-200/2.8 + 2x TC nor the 300/4 + 1.4x TC gave me results as sharp as the 400/5.6. Further, I assumed that I'd be using a tripod at that focal length in any case, so the IS was not as big a deal.

 

I like the 400/5.6, but my actual usage didn't match my predictions exactly. It turns out I have used it without the tripod a bit, and when I do I'd be happy to have the ability to turn on the IS. On the other hand, I have also used it with both tele-converters on the tripod, giving me a pretty sharp 580/8 with the 1.4x and a passable 800/11 with the 2x. I guaruntee the 400/5.6 + 1.4xTC is sharper than the 300/4 + 2x TC, and 800mm is a lot of reach if you can lock the sucker down sufficiently.

 

So, I like my 400/5.6, but not entirely for the reasons I expected.

[William Michael]

>>> Part 2: I rented the 300/4 IS and the 400/5.6 a few years ago to try and decide which one to buy. I ended up getting the 400/5.6. (. . .) So, I like my 400/5.6, but not entirely for the reasons I expected. <<< (CM)

 

All of what you wrote I too have worked through (and agree with in regard to my personal expectations): EXCEPT I still value the IS on the 300 over the reach of the 400.

 

Your experience with the 400 has given me pause to rethink it for me, although I have a passion for the 500F4, later down the track: I think that fits with the 300 (and extenders) better, for me.

 

Thanks for sharing your journey.

 

Also, please note that the original post has the NON IS version of the 70 to 200F2.8L: (I also have the 70 to 200F2.8L and both extenders.)

 

So in regard specifically to IS and the 300mm prime, your sentence below does not apply to this thread:

 

>>> My reasoning was that the 70-200 plus the 1.4x tele-converter gave me a 300/4 IS <<<

 

 

 

***

 

>>> Why not just by a 2x extender? It would give you the 400 reach with your 70-200. <<< (AB)

 

I do that, sometimes: it is acceptable, but not a satisfactory long term solution.

 

The x1.4MkII is great; the x2.0 is not so great on these excellent zooms, for my expectations:

 

The x2 on a prime, is a different story.

 

 

WW

[steve_dunn2]

<p>If you need a 100mm prime and don't do macro, I'd agree with the suggestion above that the 100/2 is worth considering. The 100/2.8 is an excellent lens, but the 100/2 is no slouch, either, and gives you an extra stop over your 70-200.</p>

 

<p>On the long lens, I've never used the 400/5.6, but I did previously own the 300/4L IS USM, which I sometimes used on its own and sometimes with the 1.4x II. The lens on its own is top-notch in every way. With the TC, I noticed that images shot wide open were somewhat soft; stopping down a stop fixed that. I don't doubt that the 400/5.6 is a better lens at f/5.6 than the 300/4+1.4x; whether it's better at f/8 and if so by how much I don't know. To me, the 400/5.6 would not be very useful; I find IS useful even in shorter lenses, and can't think of a reason I would ever buy a supposedly handholdable longer lens without IS. And the 300/4+1.4x gives you two lenses (300 and 420); the 400 can't do that. You would also have the 1.4x which you could use with your 70-200, and that would almost fill in the gap from 200 to 300.</p>

 

<p>The 70-200+2x option isn't really worth considering unless there's absolutely no way you can afford a 300 or 400 (or 100-400); there have been numerous "which is better, 70-200+2x or 100-400" threads here over the last several years, and the consensus is that, not surprisingly, a lens designed as a 100-400 is a better x-400 lens than a lens designed as a 70-200 with a 2x TC tacked on.</p>

 

<p>As for 100-400 vs. 300 (+1.4x), I can't give you a definitive answer, although I'm sure there are some floating around out there. Certainly the 300 is faster. And I'd be surprised if it weren't also better optically; in general, primes have better optics than zooms (all else being equal; obviously, if you were to compare a bottom-of-the-barrel prime to a top-notch pro zoom, it's not a fair comparison). At 400/420, I don't know which one wins.</p>

 

<p>Renowned bird photographer Art Morris discusses some of these longer lenses, including comparisons between some of them, in his <a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/faq.html" target="_blank">FAQ</a>.</p>

[alan_myers]

Hi Christian,

 

Chris came close to mentioning this... something you need to be aware of:

 

There are two versions of the 100/2.8 Macro and $350 may or may not be a good value, depending upon which one it is.

 

Both are optically good but the later, USM version has faster and quieter auto focus that makes it a lot more usable for non-macro distances, so long as the focus limiting switch is used. Still not a speed demon, but fast enough for most uses. The earlier non-USM lens will be a little more pokey at AFing and a little noisier, so is probably be worth a bit less. However I really haven't looked at prices it's bringing on the used market recently, so you'll have to do some research of your own in that respect.

 

Now, AF speed really isn't an issue for macro work, as far as I'm concerned. 90% of the time I turn off AF and use the "to and fro" technique of focusing at macro magnifications. It's faster and easier.

 

This is simply a manual focus technique of moving the entire camera and lens closer to and further away from the subject for focus. It can be done hand held, or with a monopod, or with a macro focusing rail on a tripod (or even with a "poor man's" focusing rail consisting of a longish lens plate used as a "slider", when using an Arca-Swiss style quick release setup on tripod and lens.)

 

Now, I use my 100/2.8 USM for a walk around lens a lot. It's one of 5 prime lenses I like to have in my camera bag when I'm just doing my own thing and not having to meet any deadlines.

 

It's a good, dual purpose lens, and a decent telephoto on 1.6X crop cameras. In fact, it's the longest lens I carry for casual shooting. But, unlike you, I do want and use a macro lens for macro shooting.

 

Like you, I also have the 70-200/2.8, although mine is the IS version. I usually don't carry that lens around for casual shooting, but it is one of my top 2 or 3 "go to" lenses for work.

 

The 100/2.8 also gets used in some more specialized work situations, of course, as do all the lenses I own.

 

Regarding your other plans, since you already have the 70-200/2.8, the 300/4 plus 1.4X would probably be what I'd choose, personally. I probably wouldn't want the 400/5.6 without IS. Not that it's a bad lens in any way, just that I'm a huge fan of IS on long teles.

 

IMHO, the most ideal 400mm for hand-holding would be the 400/4 DO, but of course that's a pretty pricey hunk of lens and I'm not sure of it's usability with teleconverters, due to the special type of optics it employs.

 

On the other hand, you could *replace* the 70-200 with the 100-400 IS for an even more hand-holdable lens with more extensive reach. It's not a fast f2.8 lens, though. The 100-400 isn't in my kit for that reason, and because it's a push/pull design zoom. Some folks like the push/pull for its speed, but I personally am not a big fan of it. That's just a bias I have because push/pull always gave me trouble getting a steady shot in the past. The IS might off set that well and I probably should take it out for a spin some day. For travel, the 100-400 is quite reasonably compact considering it's reach, comparable in size and weight to your 70-200/2.8.

 

Note: Any f5.6 lens will not be able to auto focus on your camera with 1.4X teleconverter. Any f4 or slower lens will not be able to auto focus with a 2X TC. (But there are some kluges that *might* give slower AF in some situations, if you are interested). Only the center AF point of the 1D series and EOS 3 cameras can AF at less than f5.6.