Help

[Lilikoi the cat]

Decisions, decisions.....
Contemplating 3 lenses
70-200 2.8, 4.0
300 4.0IS
and as the 4th bonus lens and not really considering it 200 2.8
All have the off white paint and what I am looking for is pixel peeping on IQ. I have read that the 4.0 is a tad sharper than the 2.8 but how does the 300 compare to those? I think the 200 2.8 is supposed to be "nasty sharp". I had rented a 2.8 IS and there still was fuzzyness around the images not shutter speed related.
The use I am looking for is shooting stuff ~80' to 2 miles away. Birds, bridges, planes and the occasional moon. Swimsuits in Hawaii are possible too

[RaceImages]

I have rented the 70-200 2.8 IS and loved it. But for my uses I really don't need the IS so I'm renting the 2.8 non IS next week. How long are you going to be in Hawaii? Maybe it would be cost effective to just rent 2 or 3 lenses for the week

[Lilikoi the cat]

Definately cost effective but when you are unemployed being fiscally irresponsible is so fun :-)
I plan annual treks there and to other places (you know, when Alan beckons) so renting lenses will bet expensive in the long run. I liked the 2.8IS very much also but the pixel peeping IQ could have been better. Birds and jets don't tend to be very close and I end up 100% cropping things and they start to look horrid. Have you tried any of the long L primes?

[RaceImages]

No not yet, I'm going to rent the 300 and a 1.4 in October for the ALMS race at Laguna. May try a 400 next year at Indy.

[lvolkjr]

I have to agree with Steve I love the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. I rented the
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS which was better for getting closer at the ball game, but I only had it for a day. I will rent it again.

Unfortunately I've had no experience with any of the other lenses, sorry.

[Killjoy]

I can't afford to even rent the longer L primes.
Just for the simple fact that if I try one, I'll want to buy it.

[windrivermaiden]

I'm always pushing my champion...70-200 best lens hands down. If you are going to spend...spend wisely and the the best glass for the money.

[Killjoy]

Originally Posted by windrivermaiden

I'm always pushing my champion...70-200 best lens hands down.

I wouldn't part with mine for love nor money.

[Lilikoi the cat]

Wait until you see the IQ of a 300 4.0 ( for tele's of course)

[lvolkjr]

Originally Posted by Lilikoi the cat

Wait until you see the IQ of a 300 4.0 ( for tele's of course)

: I'm a noob, but what do you mean "IQ"?

[Killjoy]

Originally Posted by lvolkjr

: I'm a noob, but what do you mean "IQ"?

IQ explained

[Hikin' Mike]

FWIW, I'm not a pixel peeper, but I own the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) and the 300mm f/4L IS. I love both and I usually keep my 1.4x attached to my 300mm.

[Lilikoi the cat]

Mike,
the 200 at the long end and 300 w/o teleconverter if you had to hold up one for being a genius and having a higher IQ which would it be?

[lvolkjr]

Originally Posted by Killjoy

IQ explained

Thanks Alan.

[Hikin' Mike]

I really couldn't say. I rarely use my 300mm w/o the 1.4.