lens

[mike1430]

<p>Hi<br>

I am switching to digitial and I would like some info. I shot 2 canon f1's and 300mm f2.8L and a 500mm f4 L. I am looking at a 300 f2.8 L stabilized and a 400f2.8 stabilized, or 400 DO, also a500mm f4 stabilized. which of these lens are the best. I shot aircraft. Please help me decide.<br>

Thanks<br>

Michael</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>If you are talking Canon EF lenses for your digital switch, you must have very deep pockets!<br>

I assume you are getting a full frame digital body.<br>

Although you would not have AF, why not check into some of the FD to EF converters?<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_oflaherty]

<p>Great choice to pick from. The questions is what are going to strap it to, a crop or a ff camera?</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Are you inside or outside the aircraft? IMHO, If inside, switching lens (the IS feature) make sense. If you are out-side, what are you looking to gain? All of these lens old and new super tele are designed in film era and good for both film as well as digital. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>300 and 500 with 1.4 and 2x TC's make the most flexible kit and can be handheld with practice. 400 2.8 is a behemoth and the DO is pretty unpopular, I only used the 70-300 DO but didn't like it.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Presumably your current longer lens is either the FD 500/4.5L or the New FD 500/4.5L, that is, f/4.5 rather than f/4.</p>

<p>You many be one of the VERY few people for whom the Canon FD to EOS 1.26× converter would currently be worthwhile. This item appears from time to time s/h at a very high price, but it would enable you to make effective use of your existing lenses. Other FD to EOS converters are, in this context and perhaps also in any other, just garbage. A second alternative would be to find a Canon FD Extender 1.4x (not expensive) and have the back end converted from FD to dumb EF mount – I believe that can be done by a competent technician. Finally, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the FD heritage lobby, you could have a tecnician convert the lenses themselves from FD mount to dumb EF mount. That's all assuming that you might have some interest in keeping an eye on how much you spend.</p>

<p>Before you reach ny conclusion on new lenses, you need to decide what digital body or bodies are appropriate, because the format you choose will determine how lens angles of view compare with what you are used to on film. For example, on a 7D the EF 300/4L IS will give you approximately the same reach as the EF 500/4L IS on FF.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>I would rule out the 400 DO. The samples I've seen by the other 3 lenses you mentioned have always impressed me. However, photos coming from the DO jus don't seem to have the same image quality. Review of this lens seem to reflect this as well.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I normally shoot with the 500 F4 (I rent it). I shoot air shows all the time and I have the 500 attached to my 7D on a HD tripod and over my shoulder I have my 5D mark II with my 24-105 L. Great combo. When the action is fast (like blue angles) I can hand hold the 500 for the entire show, which is about 15 or so min. Sometimes when the 500 F4 is not available, I use my 100-400 IS and the IQ is pretty darn close. Final answer, 500 F4. v/r Buffdr</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Two things to be aware of when switching to digital. One is, if you're gonna go crop-factor (e.g. Canon 7D) you essentially get a 1.6x converter built in, so you may not need a 500 mm lens.</p>

<p>Second thing is that with digital you can change iso on the fly. If you need faster shutter speeds you just pump up the iso a bit. This makes large aperture less of a priority when you need fast shutterspeeds. This may save you some coin and lots of weight.</p>

<p>Canon 100-400/4-5.6L IS is a popular lens for airshows. That said, if you like big fast primes then you can't go wrong with any of the lenses you list up above. All have awesome image quality and blazing fast AF. The best lens is the one with the focal length that suits you needs. Consider renting before purchasing in order to be really sure.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Optically and size wise the newer EF lenses will be very similar to your FD lenses, so you should be able to determine your best choices based on your own experience. The biggest thing to take into account, as others have mentioned, is whether you are going to get a 1.6x body or a full frame body. Choose the body, then choose the appropriate lens. </p>

<p>For shooting aircraft I think I would prefer fast shutter speeds, if you agree, from your experience, then you may find that you do not need IS at all. Giving up IS means you can consider used lenses without it and save a very substantial amount of money. You could likely buy two non-IS supertelephotos for the price of one new IS one.</p>

<p>I have had the FD 300/2.8 Fluorite and the FD 400/2.8 L, and currently have a Nikon 200/2 and Nikon 400/2.8. The 400/2.8 lenses are absolutely incredible but also extremely large and heavy, not something I would think you would want to shoot aircraft with unless you had one of those expensive universal swinging tripod heads.</p>

<p>I have had the Canon FD to EOS 1.26x adapter and it does not decrease image quality at all but does add about 2/3 stop to your lenses and is of course still manual focus. The value of this converter, if you can find one, plus your two L's, would equal an EF 300/2.8 or EF 500(f4 or f4.5)L non-IS used lens.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Michael you might want to look at some slower / shorter lenses and a crop body. Like you I was (and still am) a Canon FD shooter and still use my old 300 F2.8 - sometimes with the 1.4x (rarely with the 2xTC). I find that a 300 F4 IS on a DSLR covers most of my needs - especially with the occasional use of the 1.4x TC (I have the EF 2x TC but find it is very poor - and this is the newer MkII version).<br>

On my 7D the 300 F4 gives you a equivalent 480 F4 lens and even cropped on my 5DII I can get pictures as sharp as a film full frame with a 500mm lens. Digital changes two things - the first is that you can shoot slower lenses as even crop bodies like the 7D are good at 800 ISO and quite accptable at 1600 and even 3200 ISO with care. Full frame bodies are even more tolerant and my 5DII is very good even at 3200 ISO. This high ISO capability means that you only need a fast lens for AF speed in most circumstances. Similarly AF and IS give you a better hit rate than the old FD lenses and will allow handheld use.<br>

If you are shooting in good light and your 500 F4 on an F1 gave you enough reach than I would suggest you start with the 300 F4 L IS and either the 7D or the new 1DIV body. Even though you will have to crop slighty even the 1.3 x 1D IV will give you results that beat your 500 f4 and F1. I would probably avoid a cheaper body as you want fast AF. The advantage of the 1D is it will AF with an F8 lens set up (e.g. 300 F4 plus 2x TC) while non L series bodies only go to F5.6. I find the AF on my 7D is as good as my 1DIIN AF for all practical purposes. I suggest that you buy or rent a good body (7D or 1D IV) and the 300 F4 and see how this works for you. If this is not enough reach then you can consider one of the faster lenses but rent first as they are very expensive. For several years I owned the EF 300 F2.8 L IS but I found that I was using it less and less (and the 70-200 F2.8 zoom more) due to it's size and weight. I bought it because for ice hockey you are always struggling for speed with film as the arenas are usually EV 7- 9. I replaced it with the 300 F4 L IS and could not be happier - the lens is small and light but can be easily used handheld and cost 1/4 of the price. Going longer than 300 gets expensive as the only cheap option is the 400 F5.6 which is an old lens and lacks IS.</p>

[mike1430]

<p>Thank You all for your help. I went with the 500mm f4.5 IS and the 300mm f2.8 IS.<em> <strong>I </strong></em><strong><em>know I will have more questions for you all.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em>Thanks Again<br /></em>Michael</strong> </p>