Printable View
I currently own a Canon 20D and a 1-4L IS. I have come into a small inheritance and wonder which would give me the most bang for the buck, a 500mm or more megapixels. I shoot primarily birds. I print at 12x18. I have enough money to buy one for the "time being" not both. Which is the advantage?
The 500f4IS would be my first choice. You can also use a 1.4x TC without losing autofocus. The extra 2MP don't make a big difference, although newer bodies such as the 40D have a better autofocus system, which would help for birds in flight. Newer camera bodies are released about every 18 months and you could wait one generation or save a bit and get a 40D later.
By more megapixels I had in mine spending the $5K on a 500 or a pro body with the big 10 or the old 16. That opens another issue. Has the convetional wisdom given the nod to the D3 10Mpx sensor or is 16 megapixels still the way to go? I tend to agree with you in either event on the glass but would like to see more opinions.
If you can swing the 500 f4 L IS USM, 1.4 X II, and a 40D you will have an excellent bird set up. Until you can get the 40D your 20D will keep you in the ball game. Investment in glass is much wiser than jumping on the every 18 months camera body planned obsolescence.
Jim
Lenses are always a better investment, both for better pictures and financially. Add a 40D when possible.
Walt Anderson
I think the 500mm is the best choice for the reasons already mentioned by others. Add the 40D when you can. Another option would be to get a 300F2.8 which you can use with a 2x and the 40D for about the same money as the 500mm. Then when you have more funds, sell the 300mm and buy a 500mm.
I have both (500&300) and I wouldn't give up either of them. Go for the glass and the MP will catch up to you. Remember the original 1D? Great shots with 4MP. It's not the MP. It's time in the field and opportunity.
Another vote for the glass. I find that when my wife uses my old 10D it makes great images with the 500 f4.. When your 20D dies or needs a major repair costing many dollars then upgrade your camera body. In the meantime enjoy making great images with the new perspective a new lens gives you.
That's 6 for glass, 7 with my vote - 0 for Pixels. But Jim wins the prize. I got out the calculator and worked out the mm & the $$. Do what Charlie did later by adding a 500 with a 1.4TC (someday) but for now the 300/2.8 on a 40D 1.6x with the 2x is a **** of an idea. It will give me time to work up my bi-cep muscle for that 5 someday over the rainbow. What are "like new" 100-400L IS going for now a days? :) Thanks for all the opinions guys. Problem solved!
However, the 300 f/2.8 plus a 2x TC will not give you the same image quality as the 500mm f/4 by itself. And whenever you're working with a 2x TC, you will want to stop down to f/10 or f/11 to eliminate vignetting. So you'll be using a "600mm f/11" instead of a 500mm f/4. Just something to think about.
David,Quote:
Originally Posted by David Kennedy
The image quality will be very close with the 2x and virtualy no difference with the 1.4x. Vignetting shouldn't be a problem with a 1.6 crop factor camera. The 500mm is a better choice than the 300mm for bird photography in most cases, but that's without the cost factor.
It was a problem with my old 10D and 20D--and with those cameras I only used the 1.4x TC. What "should be" and what "is" are sometimes two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Neiger
David, thanks for your input. Differant expierances are always good to heed. Are you suggesting that a 40D with a 500mm is going to have problems with a 1.4? Did you have these problems with the II series converter or the older models. I have not heard of this before. Is the neck down under 15mm off center? I would love to get someone from Canon to comment on this. Maybe Artie could shed some light on this. Most interesting.
No, Bill, it's not a "problem"--you needn't worry. All I mean is that you will always have vignetting with a teleconverter, no matter what "crop" your camera produces. It's not a technical problem, it's just part of working with teleconverters.
Artie always recommends-and my experience mirrors his advice-that you close down one stop with any teleconverter to eliminate the vignetting that the TC introduces.
Jim was suggesting that you might not even see the vignetting on a 1.6x crop camera like the 20D, so you might not even need to stop down the way you do on a 1.3x crop or 1:1 camera, and I'm simply saying that my own experience is in opposition that suggestion. The vignetting appears "reduced" in a 1.6x crop camera body, but it's still there.
Thanks for that clarity. I have never used TC's and did not know that was a given, "nature of the beast", as they say. Does less vignetting occur with a 1.4 than a 2? There is a reason I ask this question. Available light, as we are all aware, is often a problem and if I am going to have to compensate less with a 1.4 than a 2, I may in fact be better off to get the 500 so as to avoid using the 2 with the 300. Have I confused everyone yet?
Well, it's kind of a wash:
300 f/2.8 + 2x TC = 600mm f/5.6 - stop down to compensate: f/8
500mm f/4 + 1.4x TC = 700mm f/5.6 - stop down to compensate: f/8
Now, it may be true that at certain times, f/8 isn't quite enough with the 300mm & 2x, but it probably will be. The 300mm f/2.8 is supposed to be one of the very sharpest lenses Canon makes. But Artie's suggestion is to go with the longest reaching lens you can, and the 500mm with a 1.4x will get you 100mm farther than the 300mm and the 2x.
But then, I'm the weird person who uses a 400mm DO as his primary lens. But I'm in my 20's and don't want to haul a 500mm around for fifty years and see how much back and shoulder pain I can accrue :)
Are you gettin' all this Jim. The "kid" doesn't wanna haul a 500 around. :) I think you may be right. It is 2.5 lbs heavier and as your math and Jims sezzz it ain't that much of a differance. In fact as I mentioned to Jim with a 1.4 the 300 has an intermediate range that the 500 & 1.4 can't produce. I don't know that I want to handhold over 1000mm anyway.
You guys have been great - I'm gonna go with the 300 + 1.4 + 2 and the 40D. I'll be on the cover of Geo in a couple months - right??
One thing I will say is that if you change your mind about the 300mm, you can always sell it on eBay and get almost all of your money back. Bidders on eBay are absolutely crazy and will pay almost 99% of the cost of a new product.
I use the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with 2x TC as my main lens and I am extremly satisfied with the results. Of course, the autofocus slows down some with the 2X because of the f/5.6 effective aperture but it is still acceptable. I have never used a 500mm but if I were shooting handheld, I would choose the the 300mm. I also think that the ability to zoom out is a big advantage. I am a Nikon user so I don't know much about the Canon lenses but I think that I would go for the 300mm and upgrade later to a 500mm.
I use the 300 2.8 IS as my workhorse and use the 1.4 and 2x and have personally never seen any vignetting out of the 1.6 crop or the 1.3 crop bodies.. I have also not seen it using full frame..
Anyway this is a great combo until you can afford to get the longer glass...
It will be interesting to see if I ever want the 500. I think only IF I ever go to a D3 (that's a big IF at the price/quality differential) would I consider the 500 an advantage, and then the 300 would be a nice backup.
This is an interesting thread and touches a little on my current 1D Mark III versus 1Ds Mark III choice I am trying to make. Any comments on how the $$$ versus pixel count match up on these two bodies. Do you go for the pixels and give up frames per second or does the 1D Mark III pixel count do just fine? Makes my head spin! Obviously I am oversimplifying here between the two bodies, but I have to start somewhere.
With the new 1Ds having a faster shooting rate the decision becomes even more difficult !!!!! Good luck !!!
Enjoyed this thread, folks. Interesting how different solutions work for different folks. But you'll get the Nat Geo cover sooner with a wide angle lens, I'd bet. Big foregrounds framing or leading the eye to action in the background with lots of depth. But it's tough to get wildlife to stand for a 20mm approach! I sneak by with a 100-400 IS zoom and an old 300 2.8 non IS with both converters. With the ISO speeds we can shoot these days, IS becomes less and less essential. Someone on a tight budget might consider this to save $ and pick up a sharp, old 300.
Ron
