Caroline Woodley schrieb: > > Hi all, > > My next lens purchase is likely to be a mid range telephoto zoom. I want > ideally to have a range certainly covering the 100-300mm region and > preferably up to 400 if possible. I want to shoot mostly wildlife, i.e. > birds and small creatures, and compressed-perspective landscapes with this > lens and it has to be sharp enough for the pictures to be publishable.
As for landscapes. you can use a tripod and stop down the lens quite a bit. This will likely give you publishable images with any of the lenses you mention. Wildlife is another story, especially small animals and birds. For birds, 300mm usually won't fit the bill, unless you mean BIG birds. Even with a 400mm lens you would often have to use a TC. > Unfortunately though I have a fairly small budget (around �750 - �800 in UK) > which precludes most of the Canon L lenses apart from the 100-300 L and the > 70-200 F4 L. My questions therefore are: > > 1) Of the Canon 70-200 F4L and 100-300L lenses which is best? Are they both > compatible with the Canon extenders (1.4x and 2x)? No, the 100-300L isn't. I think the 70-200 f/4 is, but I'm not absolutely sure. > 2) How do the above lenses perform with the 1.4x and 2x converters - do I > lose autofocus and is the optical quality still good enough to produce > publishable photos? With the 70-200 f/4 I think quality would be ok, at least with the 1.4x TC. You wouldn't lose AF, some cameras will AF even with the 2x TC. > What about light loss? I'm asking since, if I went with > the 70-200 lens, I would certainly have to buy at least the 1.4x converter > as well to get the range of zoom I want, presuming it can be used with the > converter. With the 1.4x you lose 1 stop, with the 2x 2 stops. If you really don't need more than 200mm at the long end (which is unlikely IMHO if you plan to do birds and get publishable images), I'd say a used 80-200 f/2.8L or 70-200 f/2.8L will suit you better. They are a full stop faster and at least the 80-200 isn't more expensive and a very good lens. The one extra stop will often be welcome. You'd have to use a third party TC with this one, though. But there are some good ones out there. > 3) What about the 75-300 IS lens? How good is it and would it be enough to > sway me away from the L lenses for shooting, e.g. wild birds? I don't think so. It's in the same league as the 100-300 USM non IS lens and you would have to stop down to f/8 or better f/11 to improve image quality. Main problem is low contrast, IMHO, although sharpness isn't very good either. > 4) Are there any other Canon or third-party lenses which are within budget > and as good as or better than the two Canon lenses I am considering? e.g. > Sigma or Tokina. I'd look for a prime, maybe a 300 f/4 or even 400 f/5.6, either a used Canon lens or a third party one. They deliver better image quality, are faster and work better with TCs (although third party ones will likely not work with Canons TCs). Thomas Bantel * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
