Jul 10, 2005, 09:00
Okay, here's the situation.
Most of the photography for which I need a long lens is wildlife shooting, particularly birding but also deer and elk and such when I am on vacation out west.
I have been shooting with a Canon 10D, but I just upgraded to a 20D.
I HAD been using a Sigma 50-500, and it was working out all right for birding...but then I took it with me on vacation. I am not a small man, and I don't have a problem carrying a bit of weight, but carrying that Bigma in a backpack on several hikes of more than 3 miles convinced me I need something lighter. What also helped in that decision was two different experiences shooting elk. The first, I was close to my car and able to use a tripod and the pics turned out awesome. The second, I was far away from the car and only had a monopod. Those pictures were unusable.
So, I need something lighter that will still get me some serious reach.
I've narrowed the contenders down to these three:
1)Canon 400mm f5.6L USM
2)Canon 100-400mm f4-5.6L IS USM
and
3)Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM with a 2X extender (I already have, and love, a 70-200 f4L, but I wouldn't care to halve that f4 by using a 2x extender on it.)
So, which of these meets my requirements the best in your opinion? Which is a better buy for the money? Could I get away with getting the non-IS 70-200 f2.8 and using the extender, or would I be better off with the IS for monopod and hand-held shots?
Also, which of these would be lighter? And how much longer is the 400mm prime than the collapsed zooms?
Finally, are there any possibilities I am overlooking?
Any help would be appreciated.
TIA
Most of the photography for which I need a long lens is wildlife shooting, particularly birding but also deer and elk and such when I am on vacation out west.
I have been shooting with a Canon 10D, but I just upgraded to a 20D.
I HAD been using a Sigma 50-500, and it was working out all right for birding...but then I took it with me on vacation. I am not a small man, and I don't have a problem carrying a bit of weight, but carrying that Bigma in a backpack on several hikes of more than 3 miles convinced me I need something lighter. What also helped in that decision was two different experiences shooting elk. The first, I was close to my car and able to use a tripod and the pics turned out awesome. The second, I was far away from the car and only had a monopod. Those pictures were unusable.
So, I need something lighter that will still get me some serious reach.
I've narrowed the contenders down to these three:
1)Canon 400mm f5.6L USM
2)Canon 100-400mm f4-5.6L IS USM
and
3)Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM with a 2X extender (I already have, and love, a 70-200 f4L, but I wouldn't care to halve that f4 by using a 2x extender on it.)
So, which of these meets my requirements the best in your opinion? Which is a better buy for the money? Could I get away with getting the non-IS 70-200 f2.8 and using the extender, or would I be better off with the IS for monopod and hand-held shots?
Also, which of these would be lighter? And how much longer is the 400mm prime than the collapsed zooms?
Finally, are there any possibilities I am overlooking?
Any help would be appreciated.
TIA
Canon 5D, Canon 17-40 F4L, Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Macro, Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 70-200 f2.8L, Canon 400mm f5.6L, 580EX Flash.