lens advice

[Wendy Kates]

Hi all,

I currently own a Canon Rebel Xsi, and 2 lenses: the comsumer Canon 18-200mm, and the 300mm/f4 L which I often use with a 1.4x extender. I use the 300mm to shoot wildlife and waterfowl, and I am trying to master songbirds as well. I use the 18-200mm to shoot waterfalls, flowers, architecture, bridges, interesting roofs, cobblestoned alleys, etc. I am thinking about buying the 100-400mm lens, since it will give me more flexibility than the 300mm, allow me to shoot waterfowl without a tripod, and would provide sharper images for some of the urban photos I now take with the 18-200mm lens. But having said all of that, I'm still concerned that the 100-400mm will duplicate the 300mm. One option would be to buy the 100-400mm, see how much use I get out of it vs the 300mm, and potentially sell the 300mm if I see I'm not using it as much. But perhaps there is another lens that would not duplicate the 300mm but would still meet my needs. Your thoughts / suggestions are welcome!

Wendy

[Roger Clark]

Wendy,
I own both the 100-400 and 300 f/4. I am not a fan of the 100-400 (but like the zoom). My 100-400 is simply not as sharp as the 300 (even the 300 with 1.4x). For a great zoom lens that does not duplicate your present capability but with gives impressively sharp images, check out the 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8. I have the f/4 and it is small and light so easy to carry and great performance.

Roger

[Daniel Cadieux]

...and on the flip side, I've been using the 100-400 as my workhorse lens for the past five years, sharp as a tack, and it will need to be pried off my cold dead hands. There are known to be variations in IQ with different individual lenses of this type. Best thing is to try out your options and go for the one(s) that best suit your needs and budget.

See Artie's blog too, he's been raving about the 70-200 f/2.8 and TC.

[Don Lacy]

Im with Roger I do not see much improvement with the 100-400 over the 300 + 1.4 TC I would be looking to replace the 18-200. You could cover most of that focal length with the 17-40 f/4 and the 70-200 f/4 and if you go with the non IS version of the 70-200 that combo is cheaper then the 100-400. With this combo you replace a consumer zoom with two pieces of L glass and will see noticeable improvements over your current lens. You mention in your post that the 100-400 would allow you to shoot waterfowl without a tripod why is this important as someone who owns several IS lenses I can tell you that I shoot 90% of all my images from a tripod and for your subjects a tripod should not be a hindrance.

[Wendy Kates]

Thank you all, for your thoughtful advice. Although I rented the 100-400mm lens last weekend and got good photos, I didn't like the location of the manual focus ring when the lens was extended. So, between that, and the fact that it duplicates my current setup, I'm going to take Roger and Don's advice, and buy the 70-200 f/4. But I am going to invest in one with IS, so I'll hold off on the wide angle lens until my bank account recoups from this purchase! Re: using a tripod: I shoot birds with a tripod too most of the time...the reason I'm concerned now is that we are planning a trip to the Galapagos and the advice I've read is that it's not always convenient or easy to set up a tripod there. But I will take my monopod...and hopefully between the 70-200mm and the 300mm, with or without the extender, I'll get good shots! Thanks again!

[Don Lacy]

Wendy the 70-200 is a great little lens and along with the 300 so serve you well in the Galapagos.
Enjoy your trip,
Don

[Daniel Cadieux]

Enjoy the lens, you won't regret it! Have fun on your trip too!!

[David Stephens]

That'll be a great set up Wendy. Enjoy your trip and brings us some pix.

[Tony Hansford]

I would have suggested the 28-300 Canon as an everyday lens. The 70-200 is too long at the short end and too short at the long end.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Good call. 70-200 f/4 is a great lens. I used to have the non-IS version. I've read online that the IS is even better...not just because of the IS...I believe optics and probably the aperture design is also different.

I used to also own the non-IS 300 f/4. yes...its a wonderful piece of glass indeed.

f/4 is a big advantage over f/5.6 for subject isolation from background.

Thanks to Canon for providing so many options in the intermediate tele space.

[Wendy Kates]

Thank you, all, for the great input. The 70-200 / f4 lens arrived from B&H, and I'm enjoying it already!