How does this plan sound

[strick]

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???

 

[GreenSlime89]

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???

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!

 

[strick]

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.

 

[GreenSlime89]

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?

 

[strick]

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?

If I had it I know what I would like to do with it. 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.

 

[soylentgreen]

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.

 

[strick]

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.

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.

 

[soylentgreen]

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.