Super Telephoto Primes

Grimace

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 17, 2003
3,541
40
with Hamburglar.
Hey all, I am considering the leap into the long-range lenses. The two options have been put head to head a billion times on photo discussion boards, but I wanted to hear what you all think:

Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM + 1.4x Teleconverter OR
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
 

pdpfilms

macrumors 68020
Jun 29, 2004
2,383
0
Vermontana
So I'm guessing you've ruled out teleconvertors to use with your 70-200?

EDIT: Yeah, thought you probably did if you're looking to spend that much money. Sorry i can't be of much help.
 

Grimace

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 17, 2003
3,541
40
with Hamburglar.
pdpfilms said:
So I'm guessing you've ruled out teleconvertors to use with your 70-200?
I've heard really crappy reviews of the 2x teleconverter, much better ones from the 1.4x. Using the 1.4x on each of the lenses gets you:

200mm = 280mm
300mm = 420mm
400mm = 560mm

I know that technically it's even more with a 1.6x camera like the Rebel XT -- but I use that as my baseline frame of reference. I know what 200mm looks like through on 1.6x camera, and I'd like 300mm or more. The obvious answer is that you can go much farther with the 400mm, but the 300mm has IS and a wider aperture. I'm hoping someone here has used one or the other and has a recommendation. :)
 

snap58

macrumors 6502
Jan 29, 2006
310
0
somewhere in kansas
carletonmusic said:
Hey all, I am considering the leap into the long-range lenses. The two options have been put head to head a billion times on photo discussion boards, but I wanted to hear what you all think:

Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM + 1.4x Teleconverter OR
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
Well maybe you should just go for the 300L 2.8 IS? That would be a 420 f4.0, or a 600 5.6, it actually does pretty good with the 2X, so they say.
 

Grimace

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 17, 2003
3,541
40
with Hamburglar.
Ha!! I guess I should have written that I can't afford the 300mm f/2.8 -- that puppy is ~$4000!!

I suppose I shouldn't mess with Pro lenses if I can't afford the Pro sticker price :rolleyes: Both of the options I listed above keep me under $1500 so that's what I'd like to go with for now.
 
get the is version

but if u can get the 2.8 - at those ranges u will need every extra stop of light to help you prevent blur/shake. you could rent the pro lenses instead of buying a non-pro, and save up till you can buy one flat out - i mean i dont see you using he 300 or 400 as your general purpose walk around - unless of course you do lets say bird photography
 

fradac

macrumors regular
Oct 24, 2003
127
0
Atlanta, GA
also, it depends what camera you are using the lens with. for instance if you are using a canon rebel XT or 20D there is a 1.6conversion factor. so a 300mm will act as a 480mm
 

Grimace

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 17, 2003
3,541
40
with Hamburglar.
Well, I'm strictly an amateur photographer, but here is the breakdown:

40% wildlife
30% sports (soccer, crew, basketball)
20% cityscapes
10% plantlife

I photographed a soccer game yesterday with my 70-200mm IS, but then realized I was using a tripod which disables the IS. :rolleyes:

For long shots (say 400mm +) you need IS or a tripod. Given the above comments, I'm thinking of going with the 300mm IS + 1.4x for versatility in handheld shooting. I wouldn't want a 400mm permanently attached to a tripod, it's just not as versatile.
 

pdpfilms

macrumors 68020
Jun 29, 2004
2,383
0
Vermontana
calebjohnston said:
Britney Spears, c'mon... say it... say it...
hahahahahahahahahahahahah

Let's play "What am I doing wrong to my Baby today?" with special guest and resident expert, BRITNEY SPEARS!
 

jared_kipe

macrumors 68030
Dec 8, 2003
2,967
1
Seattle
pdpfilms said:
hahahahahahahahahahahahah

Let's play "What am I doing wrong to my Baby today?" with special guest and resident expert, BRITNEY SPEARS!
Yeah, like my parents did such a good job ;) ;)