Hi guys,
I need to pick some of your brains and experience. I'm essentially a wedding photographer here who's just surviving in this world like everyone else making ends meet. I shoot weddings as a full-time job and pick up events to fill in the gaps. Essentially, my core business is in the wedding industry. Since I predominantly cover weddings, most of my business asset purchases have been based on ROI for each asset acquired from lenses to computer periperals. Hence from this my dilemma because I'm also a passionate photographer who also wants to shoot other things and this includes wildlife like birds (the feathered type) and animals (the furry types). However, I cannot justify acquiring a long tele just for that purpose because the returns are almost zero where I'm from due to lack of demand here. The focal range I'm aiming for is the 500-600mm range and I'm afraid the super IS teles from Canon is totally unaffordable and unjustifiable.
So.. I'm currently considering the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. I'm also looking at the EF400 f5.6l, EF300f4 LIS. I intend to use these lens with a Kenko 300 PRO 2X which I acquired recently and found the images acceptable when used on my 70-200 IS stopped down a bit so I'm quite sure it would be acceptable on those lenses as well.
These are my options:
1) 120-300 + 2x = 240-600 f4
This obviously seems like the right choice but I've heard issues like compatibility issues of sigma with future Canon mounts etc, slow AF etc. Even with my 70-200, I can already feel the AF slow down with the 2X. Image quality of this lens I've heard is superb and I can use this lens with my wedding jobs due to the wide aperture.
2) 400 + 1.4x = 560 f8
This seems ok but at f8, lighting seems a bit of an issue. Worst still, the 2X works with acceptable sharpness stopped down at least 2/3 stop.
3) 300 f4 + 2x = 600 f8
This is another option but same issue as above.
4) Can't justify the EF300 f2.8 plus its too heavy
What are your views on this and is there another option that someone can suggest that I may have overlooked?
Full Version: Most versatile solution?
QUOTE (dcp @ Mar 1 2007, 02:08 PM)
Hi guys,
I need to pick some of your brains and experience. I'm essentially a wedding photographer here who's just surviving in this world like everyone else making ends meet. I shoot weddings as a full-time job and pick up events to fill in the gaps. Essentially, my core business is in the wedding industry. Since I predominantly cover weddings, most of my business asset purchases have been based on ROI for each asset acquired from lenses to computer periperals. Hence from this my dilemma because I'm also a passionate photographer who also wants to shoot other things and this includes wildlife like birds (the feathered type) and animals (the furry types). However, I cannot justify acquiring a long tele just for that purpose because the returns are almost zero where I'm from due to lack of demand here. The focal range I'm aiming for is the 500-600mm range and I'm afraid the super IS teles from Canon is totally unaffordable and unjustifiable.
So.. I'm currently considering the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. I'm also looking at the EF400 f5.6l, EF300f4 LIS. I intend to use these lens with a Kenko 300 PRO 2X which I acquired recently and found the images acceptable when used on my 70-200 IS stopped down a bit so I'm quite sure it would be acceptable on those lenses as well.
These are my options:
1) 120-300 + 2x = 240-600 f4
This obviously seems like the right choice but I've heard issues like compatibility issues of sigma with future Canon mounts etc, slow AF etc. Even with my 70-200, I can already feel the AF slow down with the 2X. Image quality of this lens I've heard is superb and I can use this lens with my wedding jobs due to the wide aperture.
2) 400 + 1.4x = 560 f8
This seems ok but at f8, lighting seems a bit of an issue. Worst still, the 2X works with acceptable sharpness stopped down at least 2/3 stop.
3) 300 f4 + 2x = 600 f8
This is another option but same issue as above.
4) Can't justify the EF300 f2.8 plus its too heavy
What are your views on this and is there another option that someone can suggest that I may have overlooked?
I need to pick some of your brains and experience. I'm essentially a wedding photographer here who's just surviving in this world like everyone else making ends meet. I shoot weddings as a full-time job and pick up events to fill in the gaps. Essentially, my core business is in the wedding industry. Since I predominantly cover weddings, most of my business asset purchases have been based on ROI for each asset acquired from lenses to computer periperals. Hence from this my dilemma because I'm also a passionate photographer who also wants to shoot other things and this includes wildlife like birds (the feathered type) and animals (the furry types). However, I cannot justify acquiring a long tele just for that purpose because the returns are almost zero where I'm from due to lack of demand here. The focal range I'm aiming for is the 500-600mm range and I'm afraid the super IS teles from Canon is totally unaffordable and unjustifiable.
So.. I'm currently considering the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. I'm also looking at the EF400 f5.6l, EF300f4 LIS. I intend to use these lens with a Kenko 300 PRO 2X which I acquired recently and found the images acceptable when used on my 70-200 IS stopped down a bit so I'm quite sure it would be acceptable on those lenses as well.
These are my options:
1) 120-300 + 2x = 240-600 f4
This obviously seems like the right choice but I've heard issues like compatibility issues of sigma with future Canon mounts etc, slow AF etc. Even with my 70-200, I can already feel the AF slow down with the 2X. Image quality of this lens I've heard is superb and I can use this lens with my wedding jobs due to the wide aperture.
2) 400 + 1.4x = 560 f8
This seems ok but at f8, lighting seems a bit of an issue. Worst still, the 2X works with acceptable sharpness stopped down at least 2/3 stop.
3) 300 f4 + 2x = 600 f8
This is another option but same issue as above.
4) Can't justify the EF300 f2.8 plus its too heavy
What are your views on this and is there another option that someone can suggest that I may have overlooked?
I am thinking about EF300mm f2.8L IS USM or EF400mm f4 DO IS USM Set, and I still can't decide.
QUOTE (Kika Livno @ Mar 2 2007, 03:48 AM)
I am thinking about EF300mm f2.8L IS USM or EF400mm f4 DO IS USM Set, and I still can't decide.
The 300 2.8 IS is way to heavy for my purpose.. the 400 is an alternative.. will look into this one.
QUOTE (dcp @ Mar 2 2007, 05:58 AM)
The 300 2.8 IS is way to heavy for my purpose.. the 400 is an alternative.. will look into this one.
??????????
The 400 f/4 DO is not a low budget acquisition. You could buy all three of your other alternatives for the price of this baby.
I own the 400 f/5.6 and the 300 f/4 IS. Frankly, I would go with the 300 and a CANON 1.4 TC and realize two compromizes...
1) The lens/1.4 combo is versitile, but not flawless. At least autofocus works.
2) There is no practical way to get to what you want without spending the cash and hauling the gear.
Right now, I am suffering from 3 deteriorated disks in my back. Once I am back on my feet I will have to resort to using my 70-300 DO for while. I simply cannot hoof around my 70-200 f/2.8L, 300 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6, or my monsta 500 f/4 IS. They all sit. The 70-300 DO is a sweet walk-around instrument (think weddings and events), but is cannot be extended with a quality teleconverter and the contrast falls off at the long end.
Does anyone have any opinions or experience with the 120-300 on Canon 1 series bodies? How does it perform at f8 with the 2X?
you don't say what body you're using, but the crop-frame magnification is extremely useful in getting some reach without an extremely heavy and expensive lens
if you really want a long lens, the 400 f5.6 is the longest and lightest for the dollar if you can get by without IS
i can't really recommend the third party lenses although i have a Tamron 200-500 which is pretty close to the 100-400 except for IS - i find the 100-400 to be more versatile and slightly sharter with better contrast
the 300 f4 is okay with a 1.4, but not so great with 2x - won't autofocus and is very soft if used on a full frame camera, better on crop frame (will print good 8x10s)
i can't recommend the 70-300DO as a long lens, mine is very soft over 200mm, although it works better on a crop frame camera - still does not compare with any of the above (you can use it with a Kenko pro 1.4x and it will autofocus, but images generally are not worth the trouble)
there aren't many choices, but there is a huge amount of discussion - look at the dpreview board
if you really want a long lens, the 400 f5.6 is the longest and lightest for the dollar if you can get by without IS
i can't really recommend the third party lenses although i have a Tamron 200-500 which is pretty close to the 100-400 except for IS - i find the 100-400 to be more versatile and slightly sharter with better contrast
the 300 f4 is okay with a 1.4, but not so great with 2x - won't autofocus and is very soft if used on a full frame camera, better on crop frame (will print good 8x10s)
i can't recommend the 70-300DO as a long lens, mine is very soft over 200mm, although it works better on a crop frame camera - still does not compare with any of the above (you can use it with a Kenko pro 1.4x and it will autofocus, but images generally are not worth the trouble)
there aren't many choices, but there is a huge amount of discussion - look at the dpreview board
QUOTE (stever @ Mar 3 2007, 01:01 AM)
you don't say what body you're using, but the crop-frame magnification is extremely useful in getting some reach without an extremely heavy and expensive lens
".....experience with the 120-300 on Canon 1 series bodies?"
Also see signature
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.