Ok so i finally got the go-ahead that im allowed to get a new lens. ive been in need of a decent telephoto for awhile now and after doing alot of research im totally undecided.

a) Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L (non IS) w/ a 1.4x TC
b) Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

The 400mm is twice the cost of the 200 clearly, but i think i may get better over all use out of it vs using a TC. Im currently shooting this with a Digital Rebel XT until i get my 40D.

I dont need IS necessarily because i will always have a tripod. I will be shooting birds mainly, and most of those will be in the evening (owls and such) but some daytime as well in between.

I saw the 400mm f/5.6 which is cheaper but the higher f/ worries me in evening shooting and i would prefer a lens that can zoom in and out.


Sooo... anyone who has used these lenses can u let me know how you like them? under these circumstances which lens would you feel is most effective?

 

Of what you listed

A) hands down if your shooting from a tripod you will not miss the IS. I use the same combo and its stellar. Also the 200mm with a 1.4x attached on your crop body is an equiv 448 fov at F3.5.


Choose the 400mm 5.6 hands down over the zoom give up the low light shooting until you can purchase a 400mm 2.8l

I would rather concede a few low light shots than suffer thru the lower quality of shot the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 produces. Remember the 4.5 of the 100-400 is in the non zoomed range at 100mm. When you get it out to 400mm its going to be the same 5.6 as the prime. At that point own the prime for the superior photo quality.

Another suggestion for you is to but the 300mm f4 non-is It is one of canons sharpest lenses. Drastically superior to the 100-400 f4.5-5.6l. I regularly reach for mine when im in need of a longer focal length than a 200mm. The 300mm f4 can be had used in the $700 range.

 

^^ i agree, unfortunately i will be doing 90% low light this summer being that the owls im shooting will be having peak activity april-july. after that it goes back to more daytime shooting at least.

i hadnt considered the 300mm f/4 thanks for the tip, thats definitely in the price range. i almost would rather something that can zoom in and out, but 300mm isnt that difficult to deal with.

you really hit the nail on the head tho, IDEALLY the 400mm f/2.8L is the answer, but i wont have the permission for that one prolly EVER

 

^ I know your pain. Trust me. Pick up the 300mm F4 check on Fred Miranda for one. Just get the non-is version its the better of the 2.

 

yeah its all ur fault, now im totally wanting a 300mm instead hahaha i might just opt for the IS its not alot more and would be nice to have the option of being handheld sometimes.

thx for ur help btw

 

Hey, Ur welcome. Just enjoy the lens you get

 

I've used both (outdoors) and love them. I say close your eyes and pick one.

 

^^^ lol well i guess i cant fail then

 

ummm..... ok ill leave it at that.


J/K you will be fine with either

 

I'm not a 'frequent' poster here, but I do own and use both of the lenses you are considering.

Especially since you will be shooting in low light, I'd say do the 70-200mm.... but I would DEFINITELY go with the EF70-200mm F2.8L IS version and the 1.4 extender. When used on a tripod, the IS should be turned 'off'.

The EF70-200mm F2.8L IS is a great lens, and I use it a lot more than I thought I would. Even if you aren't doing much handheld work now, somewhere down the road you probably will be, and you will be glad you've got the added flexibility of the IS.

The EF100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS is a great sports lens, especially when used on a crop body that gives you so much extra 'reach'..... but IMO it is not quite as sharp as the EF70-200mm F2.8L IS.

Whatever you decide, both lenses are super. I wouldn't part with either of mine.

Good hunting!