bryan_king1

<p>It depends on your subject and shooting style. I have owned both lenses. My preference was the 100-400L. The 400 is a little sharper and faster focusing, but I think the benefits of the zoom (flexibility, IS, closer focus) make it the better choice. I do not like having to frequently add extension tubes for close focus. IS is a huge advantage if you handhold lenses. So basically, if you need the IS, want zoom flexibility and photograph close subjects get the zoom. If you photograph subjects that are typically farther away, need the faster autofocus, and are willing to use a monopod or tripod then get the 400. The 70-200 f/4 IS and 400 combo works well if you have two cameras and carry them both at the same time, but you may miss some shots switching between the two lenses that you would have nailed with the 100-400. Plus the 100-400 alone is lighter then the other two lenses when traveling. </p>

<p>Thank you all for your comments. <br>

Based on feedback, I am definitely buying either the 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2 for portraits. Several people have recommended the 85 already. <br>

My main question for this post is how much different is the background blur/bokeh of the 2.8 IS vs the f/4 IS? Is the difference significant enough for portraits to warrant the upgrade expense and extra weight? My thoughts are that I could also use the f/2.8 IS with a 2x TC for wildlife when the extra reach is needed. I know this is less than ideal, but it will autofocus and I cannot justify the extra expense of another telephoto lens that gets very little use. The 70-200 on the other hand would get much more use for general photography, portraits, and landscapes.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the replies. I have a Canon 1.4x TC and a Kenko 2x TC so the 2x should mount on either lens. I figured both lenses are sharp so the results stopped down to f8 w/the 2x TC should be decent. Has anyone tried this with either of these lenses? </p>

<p>Hello. I know there has been many comparisons of these lenses already, but I still have questions. I currently own a Canon 50D, 10-22 EFS, 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and a 70-200 f/4 IS. I also have a 1.4 & 2X TC. I have 5 month old twins so I am taking mainly baby pics these days, but I also enjoy landscape, wildlife, and travel photography. My budget is limited.<br>

How much different is the backaground blur/bokeh of the 2.8 IS vs the f/4 IS? Is the difference significant enough for portraits to warrant the upgrade expense and extra weight? My thoughts are that I could also use the f/2.8 IS with a 2x TC for wildlife when the extra reach is needed. I cannot justify the expense of a 100-400IS or 400 f/5/6 right now. That is too much money for a lens that will get used for 2-3 trips a year and sit in the cabinet the rest of the time. I would likely sell the 10-22 and 70-200 f/4 IS to fund this "updrade" since the 10-22 is only used a few times a year as well.<br>

I am also considering getting either the 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2 for portraits. I can afford to buy either of these without selling any current gear. My travel light kit would then be my 17-55 IS and either of these lenses (occasionally used w/ the 2x TC for extra reach) if I get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. <br>

What are your thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Any thoughts on using a 2x TC with either the Canon 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2 lenses? I have a Canon 50D and use a 17-55 f/2.8 IS as my standard lens. I am considering one of the two listed lenses for tight portraits of my 5 month old twins. I thought use with the TC might add to the versatility of the additional lens when traveling light. I already have a 1.4 and 2x TCs to use with my 70-200 f/4 L IS lens, but I am considering trading this lens for the 2.8 IS version. Any thoughts/recommendations are appreciated. </p>

<p> </p>

I definitely agree that the 70-200 f/4 IS lens would make a great addition for you. I currently have a copy and love it. I am in the opposite position as you. I have a 24-105 IS lens that I used on a 5D. I recently sold the 5D, and now I am considering selling the 24-105 to get a 17-55 IS lens to use on a 40D. My only concern has been the build quality/dust issue of the 17-55 lens. I have a 10-22 to cover the WA shots, but I think the 17-55 IS will be a better "normal" lens. Have you been happy with the 17-55 IS lens?

 

Bryan

Ok. I know there has been many posts debating the 5D vs the 40D. This is my

situation. I currently have a 20D w/ the grip and an old D30 (my wifes). My

lenses are (10-22 EF-S, 17-40 L, 50 f2.5 compact macro, 28-135 IS, 70-200 f4 L

IS, and a 400 f/5.6 L (all Canon). I primarily shoot nature/landscapes. I also

shoot travel and some wildlife. I have a 17 inch wide printer so I rarely print

larger than 16x24. Will I get a noticeable improvement in detail with the 5D

printing at this size?

 

I just bought a 40D kit w/ the 28-135 IS lens. (My wife would use one of the 28-

135 lenses). I still have about a week left to return it.

 

The debate: I really like the dust removal, speed, dynamic range, screen, and

user interface of the 40D.

 

However, I have heard many positives about the IQ of the 5D, and it is a great

deal at the current used prices.

 

 

My options:

 

Keep 40D and my current lenses

 

Keep 40D (sell one 28-135 IS and the 17-40 to buy the 17-55 f2.8 IS Canon lens)

 

Return the 40D and sell the 10-22 EFS and buy a used 5D for landscapes and use

the 20D for wildlife.

 

 

 

What are your thoughts? I wish I could afford both, but that is not in the

budget right now. I probably wouldn't be able to afford the 5D II for a couple

years. However, if I bought the 5D now, I probably would buy a 40D for wildlife

when it drops to around $800 used. I would really like feedback from

individuals who have used both of these cameras.

 

Sorry for writing a book. :)