long lens questions

[darrenwilson]

I am considering a new lens purchase to get me in the 400mm range. I am considering the following:

1. Canon 300 4.0L IS with 1.4X TC

2. Canon 400 5.6L

I am thinking that the 300mm will give me two options both with and without the TC. I've read that this combination can be pretty sharp, even with the TC. I am not sure however if I would actually use the 300 alone, since I am already covered up to 200mm.

As for the 400, I like the idea of a prime without the TC, but am not sure about the 5.6 letting in enough light.

I am wanting to shoot some wildlife and possibly some high school football. I will most likely be shooting in morning or evening hours, so having enough light is a concern.

Given a budget of no more than $1500, which one of these options would be better? Is there something else I should be looking at? Is it worth it to spend "only" $1500 for a combo that will give me more reach, or should I just stick with my 70-200 2.8? Where's the best bang for the buck?

So many questions. Thanks for any advice...

[ldelacruz]

I had the 300 f4 and 1.4 TCII and I really liked it. What body do you have?

[dlanter]

Have you considered the 100-400 IS?

PS, I would recommend renting first to make sure which you want to put your money on.

[PEC]

I had a 100-400L when i was shooting Canon... it was fine even to 400 if stopped down, wide open a tad soft.

Perhaps, it was just my copy.

My Nikon 300 2.8 is one of the sharpest lenses I own, if not the sharpest. On a DX, it is kinda like a 450. I opted for that path rather then the Nikon 80-400 :)

[ldelacruz]

Yeah, the 100-400 IS is a great versatile lens as well.

[darrenwilson]

What body do you have?

I have a 30D and a 50D. I will most likely be using it with the 50D.

Have you considered the 100-400 IS?

I have, but have read some mixed reviews elsewhere. Let's throw that in the mix.

1. Canon 300 4.0L IS with 1.4X TC

2. Canon 400 5.6L

3. Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6

How does this change the conversation?...

[ldelacruz]

Check posts in the nature section by Tim Timmons. He uses this setup. My choices would be as follows based on versatility. IQ should be very close in all 3. From dusk on they will all be useless and I recommend using your 70-200.
1. 100-400 IS
2. 300 f4 & 1.4
3. 400 f5.6

[MT Stringer]

Concerning the 100-400L, search the wildlife forum for member TimT. He uses a 40D and the 100-400. He has posted some outstanding shots of birds in flight, fishing and everything in between.

About that football game - most of the high school fields I've been on at night have terrible lighting. Often I wind up shooting the 40D or MK III on manual at 1/400 sec, f/2.8, ISO 3200. A flash helps if you have sideline access. Your 70-200 will be about the only choice in this senario, a little short, but it will work.

EDIT: Dangit Lonnie. You beat me with my reference!
Good luck in your search.
Mike

MT Stringer added 9 Minutes and 7 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Darren, check out my moon shot in this thread.
40D with 100-400L + Sigma 1.4xTC = 560mm, hand held. I thought it turned out pretty good.
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...d.php?t=105191

[ldelacruz]

Sorry Mike!

[darrenwilson]

Thanks for the great advice everyone.

I will look into the 100-400 and TimT's threads.

I'll keep you all posted on my search.

[tc95]

Darren,

I don't shoot canon...but two alternate lenses....you might consider...

Sigm-Monster Sigma 50-500mm very versitle lens.... (I used one but don't own it)

and

Tamron 200-500mm I have this lens..it is a bit slow...but it is sharp..or at least my copy and a couple I have played with are...

Just two other options...I have used both for Sony/Minolta and Nikon systems...if you can find an older copy of the Sigma 80-400mm OS that is a great lens...too..just hard to find...

(I will probably get flack for these sugestions...but oh well!!!! )