View Full Version : Planning Christmas Present...Yes Already
Dracofish
06-06-2005, 11:48 PM
I currently only have two lenses for my 20D. I have the kit Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. I want to eventually upgrade both, but right now I can only concentrate on one. As far as performance, I'm happier with the 18-55 so I think I'll wait to upgrade that one. Whatever I pick I have to let my b/f know now so he can start planning. Last year I told him I wanted the 20D only about a month and a half before Christmas and he couldn't pull it in time. I'm making sure I give him plenty of time this time around, lol.
Anyways, I'm going to go with upgrading the tele-zoom first. I want something that does at least 300mm, preferably more. I almost never use my current tele-zoom at it's shortest setting, so under 100mm really isn't necessary. I was looking at the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7344
What do you guys think? I really want to stay with a Canon lens and I definately want one with IS.
there's a lot of people that are really happy with the 100-400 that you mention. it's said to be pretty sharp under 400mm from what i've seen and heard it handles pretty good. a downside would be the variable aperture - which is a limitation in lower lighting, but if your current telephoto zoom is doing the trick i guess it'll be fine. of course you could always go with fast primes, but it seems to me like you would be more happy with a zoom. here's (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=19&sort=7&cat=27&page=2) the reviews on this lens at FM.
Dracofish
06-07-2005, 12:20 AM
I definately want a zoom. My main concern is IS and length. I shoot in places where it can be difficult to even bring a monopod and the shutter speed rule for lens length seems to not work so well with the 75-300mm I currently have. I consider myself to have a pretty steady hand and pretty much anything slower than 1/400 is super soft. 1/500 makes it a little better but it's still not the best (it's not so noticeable at internet picture sizes, but I'm talking about at 100% image size). That lens makes it very hard to hand-hold anything. I'd be so super happy with a good tele-zoom lens that has IS so I can hand-hold at slower shutter speeds and thus have better low-light capabilities (I shoot in the woods or overcast conditions a lot).
meriadoc
06-07-2005, 1:46 AM
IS especially on a lens that length is pretty overrated quite frankly. The zoom is a push pull design, a dust sucker if you will, and is heavy, so hand holding it for reasonable exposures even with IS is going to be difficult. I tried it at the minimum speed with IS on that it could 'apparently' handle, and it did nothing.
yes, they're nice lenses, but even still, i'd be sticking it on a monopod. you would probably be better with the 300 f4 IS. IF you need longer, stick on a 1.4x tc on it for a little more length.
jmo
paradise
06-07-2005, 1:58 AM
Mel, I have played with the 100-400 IS. It's nice. Yeah, it's heavy and you gotta get used to the push-pull zoom, but it is very good. I do suggest a monopod, it's a heavy lens. I just got a monopod for this type of work.
Dracofish
06-07-2005, 3:58 AM
Thanks for the replies but I really want a zoom. I use it a lot. In time I'm sure I'll want a prime but not right now...that and I don't have $5,000. :(
Also, like I said, I often shoot in places where the use of even a monopod is not really an option. I get into some of the most precarious positions to get a shot...hanging off cliffs, climbing rock ledges, trees, waterfalls and slippery rocks, whatever. I can't count how many times my b/f has stood there watching me and said something like "If you go down remember to let your body break the camera's fall!" I guess you could say that I really get down into the nitty gritty to get the angle I want or as close to it as possible.
The 400mm focal length is a big draw for me mainly because we often try to track down animals that don't like to be tracked down so much. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM would be perfect if we were shooting with animals that were closer and I'd love that lens as well, but I think for now I'd like something with the longer focal length.
you could always get the 70-200 IS 2.8 and a 1.4x tc. that would get you to about 280 @ f4 max aperture. it's not as long, but i'll bet it's sharper and more versatile if you should ever need a short telezoom in low light.
Dracofish
06-07-2005, 4:24 AM
That lens is tempting...looks like it has a zoom ring as well. I don't know how much I'd like the push pull motion...
And I'd always have the 75-300 as a backup just in case...dangit now I don't know!!! ACK!!!!
One thing's for sure...must invest in lens/camera cary-all backpack...dinky camera bag sucks...but I guess that's what I get for buying a set through Ebay...
i usually just take what i need for what i plan on shooting. it usually bites me in the butt. -.-
squidfish
06-07-2005, 6:19 AM
I'm still looking at a long lens but its a difficult decision. One persons pleasure appears to be anothers posion when you look at the reviews as is the way with most things.
I'm currently down to a choice of three:
Canon 100 - 400 (was very impressed with Ed's outing to the zoo with one)
Sigma 50 - 500 (which some like whilst other prefer the Canon)
Sigma 80 - 400 (which seems to get some good write -ups)
Decisions....descisions.
Cheers
Rich
I'd take a look at the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and then look at even the 1.7x TC. You can even use a 2x TC on it, but not sure how happy you'd be with the results.
The 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS works well also and I have seen some great stuff even with TCs stacked on it (manual focus). Not sure if this is the way you want to go, but here's a gallery for a local bird photographer in the area who uses this combo.
http://www.pbase.com/zylen/birds
Definitely take a look at another bag especially if you are in the field and carrying this sort of equipment around. I've actually bought all three bags (Lowepro mini trekker aw, Lowepro photo trekker aw II, and Crumpler budgie smudger) that I've ever bought from eBay and saved quite a bit even with shipping.
paradise
06-07-2005, 1:35 PM
Eric, those are pretty DAMN good pics!
Yeah, they are. Daniella is a very talented photographer and I'm amazed by what she's able to accomplish with such lenses and teleconverters stacked.
JerseyJay
06-07-2005, 1:54 PM
Daniella's website:
I now use the Canon lens 400mm F5.6 L USM. Canon lenses are simply the best for wildlife. Better quality, more features like image stabilization and less expensive than nicon lenses.
Wow. What a blank statement. I will have to point her to Keith R's pictures taken with Nikon 400mm. BTW, please tell her next time you talk to her to edit her statement and correct the spelling errors - NICON ??? ;)
LOL, Jay.
Not likely that I'll be talking to her. She's a pure Canonite by heart and won't have it otherwise. She's very narrow minded in this respect and defends it with a passion.
Dracofish
06-07-2005, 3:23 PM
It's definately between the 100-400mm and the 70-200mm
alanhill
06-07-2005, 3:24 PM
As she take photos like those with a Cannon, she is entitled to spell Nikon any way she likes ;)
Alan
Dracofish
06-07-2005, 3:29 PM
Hey, I have a Cannon! No really...I do have a cannon...it's a little mini powder cannon we shoot off at the Fourth of July, lol.
i'm surprised she does these with a 300d, as it has no continuous focus mode, besides sports program mode (to my knowledge). some nice shots there - VR will make it to Nikon's long glass before i have money for them, so no biggie to me. honestly, with proper technique, people have been using glass with no image stabilization for a long time with great results. i think technology just makes it easier for people. personally i would pass on image stabilization if i could save a significant amount of $$. a IS lens will help make that particular lens sharp, a decent tripod will help make all your lenses look sharper. i'm in the market for a tripod now -.- Eric, sell me your m10 for CHEAP! hehe
malawi_luver
06-07-2005, 11:06 PM
IS especially on a lens that length is pretty overrated quite frankly. The zoom is a push pull design, a dust sucker if you will, and is heavy, so hand holding it for reasonable exposures even with IS is going to be difficult. I tried it at the minimum speed with IS on that it could 'apparently' handle, and it did nothing.
yes, they're nice lenses, but even still, i'd be sticking it on a monopod. you would probably be better with the 300 f4 IS. IF you need longer, stick on a 1.4x tc on it for a little more length.
jmo
I think this post hits the nail on the head... i dont like the push/pull or how it sucks all of the dust inside and you need to clean your sensor... but you do get some wicked shots....
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77916
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=76389
check out these links... they will make you buy it lol...
malawi_luver
06-07-2005, 11:12 PM
This too...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59931
This is a poll for the best wildlife zooms...
i'm surprised she does these with a 300d, as it has no continuous focus mode, besides sports program mode (to my knowledge). some nice shots there - VR will make it to Nikon's long glass before i have money for them, so no biggie to me. honestly, with proper technique, people have been using glass with no image stabilization for a long time with great results. i think technology just makes it easier for people. personally i would pass on image stabilization if i could save a significant amount of $$. a IS lens will help make that particular lens sharp, a decent tripod will help make all your lenses look sharper. i'm in the market for a tripod now -.- Eric, sell me your m10 for CHEAP! hehe
Haha, Hir0. Interesting timing...gonna take a look at a BH-55 later on next week.
really Eric? you don't like your m10? i know RRS is supposed to be good too, but is it really that much better? NVM it IS that much better sell cheap!! hehe
I dunno how it is yet, so I have yet to decide. The Markins M10 is a great ballhead, but I've read so many good things about the BH-55. Good thing that one of the guys that I went out shooting with this last weekend was using one. Gonna be over at his place next Thursday, so will take a closer look at it.