which lenses?

[WaPhoto]

if you are shooting low light you may want to consider a "fast" lens like the canon 200mm 2.8, this will get you excellent bird pictures as it will help isolate the bird from the background... but if price is your number one thing, the sigma 70-300 was my first tele-zoom lens and i has many excellent flower, insect, and other shots with it. if you do decide to spend the extra money and buy the 200mm 2.8 or the 70-200 f4 you will not be disapointed.

[Duffy Pratt]

Yes, the 400 f/5.6 will take better pictures than the 200mm plus a 2x adapter. It does that at the cost of some flexibility. Let's review the bidding, from longest to shortest:

400 mm f/5.6. This costs about $1150. It has no IS. On a Rebel it's effectively a 640mm, which is really long. It will be tough to handhold (probably true of all the 400mm lengths). This will be great for birds, but will probably not work in the indoor agility trials.

100-400 IS zoom. This costs about $1300. With IS, it will allow for taking some bird pictures in lower light than the prime. It may also allow handheld shooting in situations where the prime would demand a tripod. It is more versatile than the prime, with a very wide zoom range. But at 400mm, the pictures will not be as good as the prime, especially wide open. For agility trials, it will still be very questionable, with a maximum aperture of 4.5 at 100mm. Thats probably both too wide angle and still too small an aperture to be stopping action indoors.

300mm F4 IS. This one is about $1200. This might be worth thinking about. It could be useful for bird shots, but it gives up some magnification. It has IS and a lower aperture, which would allow for even lower light shooting. It might be workable for the agility trials, but even f4 is probably still pushing it. An extra $300 could put a 1.4x extender on it. That would make it a 420mm 5.6. That combination would give you outstanding quality at 300mm, with some versatility, and also the ability to get extra reach with the extension for a minimal sacrifice in image quality.

200mm f/2.8 IS. This one is about $600-700. At 200 you lose alot for birding. But it would be a spectacular lens for the agility trials. Add the 1.4 extension and you are at 280mm with f/4, and that will give you a minimal loss of quality. Add the 2x extension and you will have a poorer performer than any of the above lenses in terms of image quality, but I have seen very good results.

The 70-200mm trio. This comes at f4 for $550, f2.8 for over $1000, and with IS for $1500-1600. It has the same difficulty for birds as the 200mm. Either of the 2.8s would be great for agility trials, but the f4 is pushing the low light limit.

If all you are interested in is taking bird shots, then you should probably choose between the 400 and the 100-400 zoom.

If you want a lens that will work both for birds and for your agility trials, I would think about some of the other possiblities.

Duffy

P.S. From what I can tell, there have been strongly mixed reviews about the 2x extender. It looks to me like people using it on 1.6 crop cameras tend to like it better than people who use full frame cameras. I can think of two reasons for this: First, the extender magnifies the defects in a lens. Alot of defects become most apparent at the edges and especially the corners of the frame. On a 1.6 crop, those defects don't hit the sensor and thus don't make it to the image. Thus, I would expect the extender to appear to work better on any camera whose camera already crops out the corners. Second, the full frame crowd tends to be a higher proportion of professionals and very enthusiastic amateurs. I suspect there may be a higher proportion of pixel peepers and other highly critical reviewers among these people. The owners of Rebels and 20Ds may be more forgiving.

Once again, I hope this helps.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Duffy Pratt

Yes, the 400 f/5.6 will take better pictures than the 200mm plus a 2x adapter. It does that at the cost of some flexibility. Let's review the bidding, from longest to shortest:

400 mm f/5.6. This costs about $1150. It has no IS. On a Rebel it's effectively a 640mm, which is really long. It will be tough to handhold (probably true of all the 400mm lengths). This will be great for birds, but will probably not work in the indoor agility trials.

100-400 IS zoom. This costs about $1300. With IS, it will allow for taking some bird pictures in lower light than the prime. It may also allow handheld shooting in situations where the prime would demand a tripod. It is more versatile than the prime, with a very wide zoom range. But at 400mm, the pictures will not be as good as the prime, especially wide open. For agility trials, it will still be very questionable, with a maximum aperture of 4.5 at 100mm. Thats probably both too wide angle and still too small an aperture to be stopping action indoors.

300mm F4 IS. This one is about $1200. This might be worth thinking about. It could be useful for bird shots, but it gives up some magnification. It has IS and a lower aperture, which would allow for even lower light shooting. It might be workable for the agility trials, but even f4 is probably still pushing it. An extra $300 could put a 1.4x extender on it. That would make it a 420mm 5.6. That combination would give you outstanding quality at 300mm, with some versatility, and also the ability to get extra reach with the extension for a minimal sacrifice in image quality.

200mm f/2.8 IS. This one is about $600-700. At 200 you lose alot for birding. But it would be a spectacular lens for the agility trials. Add the 1.4 extension and you are at 280mm with f/4, and that will give you a minimal loss of quality. Add the 2x extension and you will have a poorer performer than any of the above lenses in terms of image quality, but I have seen very good results.

The 70-200mm trio. This comes at f4 for $550, f2.8 for over $1000, and with IS for $1500-1600. It has the same difficulty for birds as the 200mm. Either of the 2.8s would be great for agility trials, but the f4 is pushing the low light limit.

If all you are interested in is taking bird shots, then you should probably choose between the 400 and the 100-400 zoom.

If you want a lens that will work both for birds and for your agility trials, I would think about some of the other possiblities.

Duffy

P.S. From what I can tell, there have been strongly mixed reviews about the 2x extender. It looks to me like people using it on 1.6 crop cameras tend to like it better than people who use full frame cameras. I can think of two reasons for this: First, the extender magnifies the defects in a lens. Alot of defects become most apparent at the edges and especially the corners of the frame. On a 1.6 crop, those defects don't hit the sensor and thus don't make it to the image. Thus, I would expect the extender to appear to work better on any camera whose camera already crops out the corners. Second, the full frame crowd tends to be a higher proportion of professionals and very enthusiastic amateurs. I suspect there may be a higher proportion of pixel peepers and other highly critical reviewers among these people. The owners of Rebels and 20Ds may be more forgiving.

Once again, I hope this helps.

Here's a 400mm f/5.6L shot on a 20D not hard to hold at all. In fact the lighter f/5.6L makes it a very fine bird in flight lense just use AI servo and a fast shutter and ISO.

Who makes a 200mm f/2.8 IS? Not Canon....

As for the EF 2X here are the MTF charts for it and all lenses up to most 400mm. This is from EF Lens Work III. You can find the MFT charts for the lenses on Canon's web page. I think the disdane many hold the 2X may well be earned and not by just FF owners and pixel peepers. There are some who love it and some who hate it as show at FM's reviews.

Here are the MTF's for it. Do you have one care to post some shots?

[Duffy Pratt]

Brain Fart. I read the "2.8 II L" as "2.8 IS L." Even so, my comments about the 200 f/2.8 performing well for agility trials, and passably for bird shots still stands. For agility trials, IS would make little or no difference, because slowing down the shutter would blur the dogs in the shots you are most likely to want.

On the 2x: yes, some love it and some hate it. At best its a compromise. You will typically be trading image quality for versatility, price, and possibly weight. I don't have one, and I don't know if I would ever get one. But before deciding, I would look at pictures that people took with it. Frankly, I don't care at all about MTF charts. The only issue for me is how it would perform in real life situations. I know some people place alot of value on test numbers and test charts, but they don't appeal to me at all.

Duffy

[Glen_A]

One more lens I would take a close look at is the Sigma 100-300 F4 zoom. Photozone tested it and gives it one of the best ratings they have. The resolution of the lens is equal to or better than the Canon 300 F4 IS lens. It also works well with the 1.4 teleconverter to give you a 140-420 mm zoom if you need the extra reach. Here is the review http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...00_4/index.htm

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Duffy Pratt

Brain Fart. I read the "2.8 II L" as "2.8 IS L." Even so, my comments about the 200 f/2.8 performing well for agility trials, and passably for bird shots still stands. For agility trials, IS would make little or no difference, because slowing down the shutter would blur the dogs in the shots you are most likely to want.

On the 2x: yes, some love it and some hate it. At best its a compromise. You will typically be trading image quality for versatility, price, and possibly weight. I don't have one, and I don't know if I would ever get one. But before deciding, I would look at pictures that people took with it. Frankly, I don't care at all about MTF charts. The only issue for me is how it would perform in real life situations. I know some people place alot of value on test numbers and test charts, but they don't appeal to me at all.

Duffy

Well show us how it preforms in "real life situations."

[Duffy Pratt]

Try one of these. Two are links to pictures with the 200mm and the 2x converter, the other is with the 2x converter on the 70-200 f/2.8. Before you can see the large versions of these, you will need to join the site (with the typical registration requirements).

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=21669

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=12996

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=28371

Duffy

[txphotog]

Try looking for a Sigma 70-200 2.8. Also go to your nearest Barnes and Noble and look for the Magic lantern guide for you camera. It is much more helpful than the manual that Canon provides.

[T1ckT0ck]

First off, I too am fairly new, and have no idea how to read a MTF chart, but I do have experience with the 2x extender. I have used the 70-200 f/2.8 L for a couple of months and have used it with the 2x extender and gotten good results (I'd like to think at least), as seen here in my backyard...j/k at the FW Zoo,



I have also used the cheaper 75-300 Canon, non-IS and gotten decent results (cant find any pictures with it of nature, but the below is what it can do in evening time at the Ballpark in Arlington.)


Another lens I have, that I have gotten alot of use out of is the 100mm Macro. It wont work with the extender, but is a good portrait / low light / Macro lens, IMHO.

Hopefully this helps some.

[happygirl]

my goodness, my head is spinning! i just moved to a little bitty town out in the country (but only about 40 minutes from "big" city) and have not been able to read these until now. you guys have soo much good info! i need to see if i can find a class out here somewhere.

since my current lens is 18-55, allowing me to get some pretty good close ups, i am leaning toward a 100-300 or 100-400 lens, as this seems to be more what "birders" use (according to birders world magazine, anyway. right now i'll be doing more birding than photographing agilityt rials (since i compete i wouldn't have time to take that many pictures). i haven't actually looked at one yet so don't know about size/weight.

i saw a pair of painted buntings out here and i'm hoping i can eventually get a great shot of them. i've also seen the gray gnatcatcher. i have yet to locate the whip-o-will that serenades us at night!

i have saved up $1,000 --- in addition to a lens, i suppose i'll be needing another flash and a remote shooter (i think that's what its called), but, first things first!

thanks!!

[happygirl]

photosig site is great!

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by T1ckT0ck

First off, I too am fairly new, and have no idea how to read a MTF chart, but I do have experience with the 2x extender.

Snipped...

.

Here's a good tutorial on MTF charts.

They are very handy...

[venchka]

Originally Posted by happygirl

...i have saved up $1,000 --- in addition to a lens, i suppose i'll be needing another flash and a remote shooter (i think that's what its called), but, first things first!

thanks!!

TRIPOD! TRIPOD! TRIPOD! The best you can afford. A Canon flash for sure to take advantage of the fill flash capability of the body-flash combination.Spend a lot of time in your backyard to get the birds used to your presence. I have blue jays addicted to peanuts in the shell. They don't even know I'm around. It's amazing how close you can get to birds with patience.

[happygirl]

i already have a tripod --- a manfretto (sp?). its come in handy quite a bit already. i would have gotten some really great pictures of dueling hummingbirds but the only lens i have is an 18-55 and even though the hummers were only about 8 feet away, my eyes are not good enough to have a true focus on the bird --- the branch it was sitting on and the flowers it was drinking from are crystal clear. it wasn't just the wings, it was the whole bird that was just a weeee bit out of focus. dang! that's why i need a telephoto or zoom so i can see what i need to focus on!!