How does this plan sound

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by strick, Aug 25, 2007.

  1. strick

    strick TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dekalb, IL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I know, I know another lens topic....

    I think I have it narrowed down.

    ---70-200 f/4 L
    ---1.4 x converter
    ---400 L
    --- sigma 24-70 ex

    For basic general shooting what do you think. Most of my lowlight stuff would be stills so I would be using a tripod so do you think I can get away with the f/4? I like that lens because I think it would be a better walk around lens since it is lighter than the 2.8. I may be taking some racing shots also but I think the f/4 or the 400 will be OK (or am I on crack)

    I have thought about the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and 80-400 or even the 100-400L but I am not sold on those yet. Do you see any flaws in the logic???
     
  2. GreenSlime89

    GreenSlime89 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scotland
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Remember that if you use the 1.4 TC on an F/4 lens you'll have a maximum aperture of F/5.6. I considered the 70-200mm F/4 but I've decided to go one better and go for the F/2.8 L USM (non-IS) It's heavier but will have better AF when a TC is attached. The Sigma 24-70 doesn't get great reviews. It seems the focus and/or zoom rings are too stiff. I'd go one up from the 70-200mm F/4 and go for the 70-200mm F/2.8 personally.

    What's the maximum aperture on the 400mm? for a walk around lens to complement your 70-200mm why not consider the 17-85mm? It's had great reviews and IS too!
     
  3. strick

    strick TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dekalb, IL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Well I don't have tons of cash so the 400 would be the 5.6 L. I would not have the converter on all the time, it would just be nice to hae to get the missing 300 range.

    Which 17-85? That arnge would be better as a good "everyday" lens to go with the 70-200.

    Right now all I have is the 18-55 kit and the cheap 75-300 on my XTi (and a 35-80 kit lens from a film Rebel from about 8 years ago). I know some of my pics could have been better with better glass.
     
  4. GreenSlime89

    GreenSlime89 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scotland
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I've over sold this lens - you were originally looking at f/2.8 glass. This is F/4.0-5.6, but you've got IS. Another problem with it is the fact that it is EF-S (Digital only) So don't use it on film/full frame cameras.

    17-85mm

    The 400mm F/5.6 seems to be a good lens according to various reviews. I'd probably invest in a monopod to ensure clear shots. Do you really need this lens though? Have you decided what you want to do and if this lens would suit you?
     
  5. strick

    strick TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dekalb, IL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    If I had it I know what I would like to do with it. :D I don't really have the actual need for it based on what I shoot now but I also don't have a lens that would be good for that type of shooting. Wildlife and possible motorsports are on that list. I would not buy the 400 right away either, I really want a good 70-xxx first and then a good lower end zoom.

    I have other ideas floating around on lenses, so much so that I keep talking myself into circles.
     
  6. soylentgreen

    soylentgreen TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I would consider the EF 300 f/4 L IS over the 400 f/5.6 L. I just liked the image quality of the 300 over the 400. The larger aperature didn't hurt either. With the 1.4x TC you would effectively have a 420 f/5.6 with IS. The 70-200 f/4 L is an excellent lens. Can't beat it for the price. A little slow for action shots so you won't be able to get a really high shutter speed. f/2.8 would be better if you can afford it. Sigma has a decent 70-200 f/2.8 I hear.
    The Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG is okay. It really needs a HSM motor to speed up AF. Most effective optically at f/5.6.
     
  7. strick

    strick TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dekalb, IL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit

    Interesting thought.

    See once again I have spun myself around in a circle. Now I am thinking the 24-105 and then the 300 f/4.........I just need to pick something and pull the trigger.
     
  8. soylentgreen

    soylentgreen TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    You pretty much answered your own question there. Just decide on what you intend to shoot, and what you want to cover. Firstly you will need a good general purpose lens for everyday shots, gatherings, etc. The 24-105 is an excellent lens, given good available light. For outdoor nature stuff, you can't beat the range it offer and versatility that IS offers for hand-held shots. For more speed you can consider the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L. There is a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS also. Only knock is that it is an EF-S lens and not weather sealed like the L's; but priced like one. I would consider the 70-200 before the 300mm though. Even with the 1.4x TC you have 280mm.
     

Share This Page