Rumors > Lenses
300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)
DanoPhoto:
I have squirreled away enough of my "allowance" over the past several months that I have approx $3000 to invest in a second hand "big white".
The question I have for the group is, based on my budget, which of these two lens gives me the most "bang for the buck"?
I will likely have the lens on a monopod (kids sports) or tripod (birds and such), so would the only benefit for IS be for framing the shots?
Thoughts? Advice?
Flake:
Well thoughts & advice you might not be prepared for!
Firstly a monopod is not going to give enough stability to render IS redundant. You'll get about a one stop advantage with a monopod, a far cry from the 4 stops IS gives.
300 & 400mm are both two short for birds so you'll be needing a teleconverter for those, my suggestion is a new or recent second hand Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 OS lens. Amazing image quality and takes a teleconverter very well, plus 4 stop OS system. With a 2X you get 240 - 600mm f/5.6 or with a 1.4X 170 - 420mm f/4 This is the most flexible range of focal length possible and gives the biggest bang for your buck, the image quality is really very good so no worries there.
If money was no object then I'd buy both of the big whites - new! However most of us live in the real world and are forced to compromise. If I were buying new I'd still think about the Sigma simply because of its sheer flexibility, when considering an older design I'd definitely go for the Sigma. You really do benefit from IS / OS especially at these focal lengths and the 400mm f/2.8 is a very big & heavy lens, no IS means a tripod - always. Both the Sigma & Canon 300mm f/2.8 lenses are heavy but not as bad as the 400mm f/2.8
Of course your main priority might be to own one of the big white lenses and showing off might be the biggest attaction of owning one of these lenses (it is for many owners). It doesn't last though as it's just too high profile for many, and you may well consider buying a camoflague cover especially for birds!
TrumpetPower!:
For sports, you'll be using a fast shutter. Between the big aperture and the monopod, you'll be just fine without IS. And, with a tripod, you'll again not be needing IS.
(Of course, given a choice between IS and no IS, IS is always welcome. It's just a very minor factor in the types of shooting you're describing.)
Both of your subjects will also benefit from the extra reach of the 400. The 400 is the go-to lens for big-people sports, and kids fill less of the frame. And you can never have enough reach for birds, unless they're chickens in the back yard.
From what you describe, the 400 is the way to go.
Cheers,
b&
DanoPhoto:
@Flake - Thanks for the third party lens perspective. I have been one dimensional (Canon only) for so long that was not part of my consideration. I love the focal range the Sigma offers, as I would be using extenders to get the reach I want for birding (on top of the 1.6 the 7D provides). As far as the reality check of who is looking at me or showing off, it would be too little, too late (past that stage in life).
Will definitely look at the Sigma, but what are your thoughts about the IQ of an "older" 400 (non-IS) versus a relatively "younger" 300?
thanks!
DanoPhoto:
@Trumpet - thanks for the feedback. What do you think about the IQ of the lenses, based on the relative age of each?
I love the 100-400, but find myself almost always shooting at the longer end and lose AF with extenders.
Thanks!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version