Hi Caroline, > 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.
Publishable in what, exactly. I've used a 300 f/4L for scientific and zoological publishing of wildlife (reptiles and mammals) with success. The editors for those publications are not really art directors, but they know a sharp, unusual or editorial photo when they see it. I think it might be really difficult to publish in an art or widely circulated photo/wildlife pub, if you are not using the same type of top-of-the-line equipment. Competing with inferior tools. So I would examine the market you would like to publish in very closely. > 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)? I had the 100-300L. I hated it. Slow AF, noisy and not nearly sharp enough. I bought it used, tested it for two days and sold it. The clincher was shooting a brick lighthouse at 300mm. With the 100-300L the mortar lines between the bricks were quite fuzzy and not always straight under a loupe. Took the proceeds and bought the EF300 f/4 L which is much sharper. The brick lighthouse shot actually looked like bricks. And was quite happy with that until I could afford something better. I'm a zoom person, so I was surprised how easy it was to adapt to a fixed focal 300mm. >5) Is it worth looking at a secondhand 100-400 L IS lens? Does anyone know > what sort of prices these fetch secondhand in the UK and whether they are > likely to be reliable (i.e. were they solidly built and therefore likely to > be in good condition after a lot of use)? This, I think, is a good idea. I found a mint EF100-400 L IS on ebay for $1250, which is at the high end of your budget. The performance at 300 (to my loupe) was similar to the EF 300 f/4L , plus the extra 100mm (to 400mm) is always great to have when shooting mammals. I mean the lens is good enough for the kind of photos I need which are NOT 11x17 spreads. I do not find myself racked out at 400 all the time. Although I would agree that a TC on the 100-400L is dicey at best. The only time I would even try it is with a rare or elusive subject matter, where the rarity of the content would roll over normal aesthetic considerations. > 6) Is there any other lens or lenses I should be looking at within my > budget? Like I mentioned earlier, I would look at a EF 300mm f/4 L, and possibly borrow or rent one for a couple of days for some test rolls. > Sorry there are so many questions but I'd like to see what everyone thinks > before I spend my cash! Always a good idea. But really think about where you would like to publish and whether you have the time and funds to compete with the other people who are consistently published there. It's one thing to start off inexperienced or with no reputation in a new field, it's quite another to start off with all of that and not quite professional equipment. It might be better to start off in smaller market/speciality pubs until you can afford better equipment. Jeff -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
