Expanding an Existing Kit

[joel_turner]

OK I'm convinced. I've settled on getting a 300/4 with a 1.4 TC. I will use a combination of Kenko extension tubes and 500D for macro work which can be used on both the 300/4 and the 28-135 IS with a step down ring 77-72. This should be about $1000 all together give or take and within my budget. I appreciate all the advice given here.

 

I have one last small question regarding coverage. Do I need coverage from the 135 - 300 range? I've been reading John Shaw's Nature Field guide extensively and realize that I'm limited to the 80 -135 range for medium telephoto work. Is this a crucial gap?

[ShunCheung]

135 to 300 is somewhat a big gap. There is where the 70-200 f4 (or f2.8) comes in handy. That lens may be for another day. Again, I am not a Canon user, but does the 1.4x work on the 28-135 at a pinch? (That is for the time being. I think eventually you'll need a 70-200 or a 180 macro. That is the real solution.)

[marcus_erne]

Hi Joel!

 

Congrats to all the great advice you have received so far! I am NOT a Canon shooter, but I found myself in a similar situation. To support your current approach:

 

When I "upgraded" to AF gear, I figured that all I would ever need were 2 zooms to cover all my possible needs. So I bought a fast 28-105mm f2.8 (3rd party) and a moderate 80-400m f4.5-5.6 (also 3rd party).

I was kind of happy with it for about 4 years, then I was ready to shoot slides, to shoot on a more serious level and my skills and needs have increased/sharpened after the "apprenticeship" years, too.

Piece by piece I was upgrading my gear with accessories (filters, tripod etc.) and whenever I found a used OEM bargain, I bought some primes and zooms as well to improve overall sharpness or general performance...

 

Nowadays I find myself using exactly what many photonetters are recommending: 17mm f3.5, 24mm f2.8 , 50mm f1.4, 28-135mm f4-4.5, 70-210mm f4 AND a 300mm f4 plus OEM TC's. I also use a diopter instead of a true macro lens for the occasional close-up.

... and only 1 3rd party lens (17mm) is left.

 

As for wildlife the 300mm f4 is hard to beat because it is financially possible to obtain one, it is still "small" and "light" (in comparison with the big glass); the only longer lens I would ever get for my system (Minolta) is the moderately priced 400mm f4.5, but then dump my 300mm!

 

I hope this helps?!?

 

May THE LIGHT be with you...!!!

 

PS, I am curious: What exactly are the magnification ratios of a Canon 250 & 500 diopter say, on a 50mm lens? I am interested as Canon makes the 72mm diameter (again) to use it on my travel zoom (28-135mm)?

[marcus_erne]

Ooops, I forgot 2 sentences:

 

Sooner or later you will need the range 135-300mm, especially for "zooming in" on details when the subject-camera distance can not be changed. But I would not worry about it now, just make it the next project after the 300mm...

[bob stewart jacksonville]

JOel,

as for the gap between 135 and 300 that is a bit of a problem. My typical travel setup when I want to go very light and still have a telephoto capability is 28-135IS, 300 f/4, 1.4tc, 2xtc, and a 12 mm extension tube. The 12mm extension tube allows you to use the tc's on the 28-135IS which allows you to cover 56-270 (which I do only if its my only option to get the particular shot). This is not an ideal solution of course. However, I think by moving your feet, and some thought in your composition, you can work around the the 135-300 gap even without using a tc on the 28-135. I'd go with the purchases you've outlined, and the next time you have extra money add a 70-200 f/4, or splurge on a 70-200 2.8.

[mskovacs]

Good choice by the sound of it.

 

Just don't expect to use tubes to gain magnification on the 300. (300mm of extension to go 1:1 is not practical!)

 

Another choice not mentioned is the old Canon L series 100-300mm f/5.6. It works superbly as a macro lens, but may not be fast or long enough for your wildlife requirements and it doesn't have the ultrasonic autofocus. This zoom is very sharp all the way out to 300mm, but I wouldn't use a teleconverter with any zoom. Leo's in Vancouver had a new one in the box for $650 CDN ($400 US) a year ago, but I don't know if they can still be found new. (the 100-4oo IS replaced it)

[jack_floyd5]

Joel,

You know!! if you let that 28-135 IS go you'll be buying a new one in a week.

I have a Tokina 19-35, Canon 28-135 IS, and Canon 300 f/4 IS, and haven't really noticed a "gap" in the 135-300 range when this is all I'm carring. Maybe I'm just doing without due to not having a lens there: I have Kenko 1.4x & 2x teleconverters, and just don't put them on the 28-135, though I've taken some good shots with them before.

While a lot of posters seem to slam Sigma, I also have a 175-500 Sigma, that has delivered some fine shots. Not real sure of it's durability for hard, overland travel use, but it's held up for five years now. What I'm getting at, finally, is that the Sigma 135-400 might be worth looking into. Price has dropped substantially in the last couple of years, and it's gotten some good comment hither and yon. You are then covered 24-400, and with a Kenko 1.4 (mounts on anything, no protrusions) you are out to...carry the square, eat the pi,tuh-dee, tuh-dum...560mm