- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 25,422
- Reaction score
- 5,003
- Location
- UK - England
- Website
- www.deviantart.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Ok so my main interest is wildlife (though a quick look at my stream would suggest bugs and coins ) however I still lack what I feel is a workable and good quality longer lens.
I've been after a 300mm f2.8 IS L ever since I got to try one out, but with the price rises in the UK its moved out of easy reach for the time being and I have decided that I need a cheaper, but good quality longer lens for the now whilst I continue to save.
With that in mind I looked at the 300mm f4 IS L, 400mm f5.6 L, 100-400mm L and the new sigma 50-500mm OS - and after carefull thinking and also talking to existing owners of long (expensive) telephoto lenses I decided that the best long term choice for me was the 100-400mm L - since the zoom whilst of a lower image quality is still very good (if one gets a good copy) and can be a good other lens for when the heavier and larger 300mm f2.8 (and similar) is not an option.
However I've been looking at the new 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 over on The Digital Picture Review site and had a look at the following tests:
First comparing the original (the lens I currently own) to the new - both wide open at the 400mm mark (with 2*TC)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results
then comparing the new zoom to the 100-400mm - again at the wide open setting
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results
Now the 100-400mm clearly beats the original 70-200mm, but the new M2 is a little bit more hazy. The 100-400mm is still leading the way, but I do wonder if with the overall improvement it might not be an idea to sell my 70-200mm f2.8 IS L and upgrade to the new versio (the cost of upgrading not being much different to getting the 100-400mm when done with added sale money from my 70-200mm).
So simply put am I mad to consider this and am I just chasing after the latest release in a range that I already have well covered - or is it a valid move to make?
ps I use a 400D camera body for my shooting and chances are this won't be changing to anything else for quite some time (even though I'd really like a 7D there are more lenses I want first)
__________________
I've been after a 300mm f2.8 IS L ever since I got to try one out, but with the price rises in the UK its moved out of easy reach for the time being and I have decided that I need a cheaper, but good quality longer lens for the now whilst I continue to save.
With that in mind I looked at the 300mm f4 IS L, 400mm f5.6 L, 100-400mm L and the new sigma 50-500mm OS - and after carefull thinking and also talking to existing owners of long (expensive) telephoto lenses I decided that the best long term choice for me was the 100-400mm L - since the zoom whilst of a lower image quality is still very good (if one gets a good copy) and can be a good other lens for when the heavier and larger 300mm f2.8 (and similar) is not an option.
However I've been looking at the new 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 over on The Digital Picture Review site and had a look at the following tests:
First comparing the original (the lens I currently own) to the new - both wide open at the 400mm mark (with 2*TC)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results
then comparing the new zoom to the 100-400mm - again at the wide open setting
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results
Now the 100-400mm clearly beats the original 70-200mm, but the new M2 is a little bit more hazy. The 100-400mm is still leading the way, but I do wonder if with the overall improvement it might not be an idea to sell my 70-200mm f2.8 IS L and upgrade to the new versio (the cost of upgrading not being much different to getting the 100-400mm when done with added sale money from my 70-200mm).
So simply put am I mad to consider this and am I just chasing after the latest release in a range that I already have well covered - or is it a valid move to make?
ps I use a 400D camera body for my shooting and chances are this won't be changing to anything else for quite some time (even though I'd really like a 7D there are more lenses I want first)
__________________