500mm F4 Canon or 300mm F2.8 or new body?
 

Hello, as a new forum member I am seeking some opinions,

I use a 1DsMk2 and a 20d and are thinking of spending some hard earned cash..

do I go for the 500 canon or the 300 canon and use my 1.4 converter when I need the extra reach..

or New 1Dsmk3 body..

or new top of the range Monitor..?

decisions, decisions...?

I do not restrict myself to any one style or subject matter so that does not really help too much..

Any thoughts or experience of the combinations would be appreciated..?

thanks

Guy
:confused::confused::confused:

Decisions indeed. The 500 is a big heavy lens which I would only buy for a specific reason like wildlife/birds. It really needs a good tripod too so you would not take it out 'on spec.' The 300 2.8 with converter would be a better general combination if you are not particularly into the birds. I wonder if there will be a super new 1D S MK lV coming out late spring in which case it might be worth waiting a while if a new body tempts you?

Hi Guy,

A bit of initiation of about your current crop of lenses and a brief on your specific photography interests will be helpful for the members to help you make a good decision.

By the way, a monitor, a lens body and two lenses are vying for a place in your arsenal.... a tricky decision to make....

all the best.

tifosi.

300mm f2.8 is one the best Canon's lenses probably second only to 200mm F 1.8 (Personal opinion, in term of IQ).

If you need mobility 300mm. Though heavy, you can easily use it off the hand and may be with a monopod.

If subject is beyond the reach unless optically eg. surfers in middle of occean that you can not get any closer to them unless optically, and setting up a station with heavy tripod can be arranged ahead of time, with no hassel, then 600mm F4 (If you can afford 500 F4, you must be able to go for 600 at same F stop that is much nicer but not significantely heavier).

F 2.8 is a big plus if you picture UK or anywhere that light could be an issue. You cannot replace that added F stop benifit in any way from F4 longer focal lenght brothers, but with right crop, when maxing the ISO in acceptable level, you still can have that otherwise impossible shoot.

Guy, before spending your hard earned cash, ask yourself "what areas of my photography are lacking?" Determine what you need before you decide on what you want. Do you find yourself trying to take photos with your current kit and constantly think "I'm not close enough, I need more reach"? If so, then a telephoto lens may well be of use. If not, then why spend your money on something you've never had a need for?

If you're not used to a 500mm lens then it will be a bit of a shock and require some (LOTS) of practice to get the best out of it.

If you've not been needing to get ever closer, then a new monitor may well be helpful. Regardless of this decision, if you don't own a monitor calibrator, that is an essential bit of spend before you decide on anything else.

It would help to know what equipment, both monitor and lenses, that you currently own. This will help others in advising you.

Duncan

I'd always go for the glass - the 500mm seems to be the choice of a lot of wildlife photographers.

Unless you're using a 500mm lens all the time, ie wildlife/birding/sports are your major subjects, I wouldnt go for the canon 500 f4. It is a really great lens - definately the one if the above applies. If you're a more occasional wildlife/birder, and need the length when you do it, then perhaps go for the sigma 500mm f4.5. This is lighter, relatively small for the focal length, and a lot cheaper. Image quality, while not quite as good as the canon, is more than adequate for most things, and with your 1dsII you will retain autofocus with a 1.4TC, giving a 700mm f8 AF combo. I use just this set-up, and havent been disappointed in it. This shot: http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...45&ppuser=1512 and this shot http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...72&ppuser=1512 were taken with the 500mm bare, and these two: http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...74&ppuser=1512 http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...43&ppuser=1512 with the kenko pro 1.4 TC. All are full frame - not cropped in, but obviously resized for web use. The sigma is handholdable in good light, despite the lack of IS, though as with all long lenses, a good tripod and head combination really make a difference, so if you dont have one (and I'd recommend a really heavy duty one, with a max wt of at least 12kg - mine is rated at 16kg) I would budget for that too.
The £2000 or so that you would save could pay for a new monitor and a 50D to upgrade your back-up body.

Thanks for all your replies.
My current kit..
100-400 is canon
70-200 is canon
25 - 105 f4 is canon L
24 -70 f2.8 canon L
17 - 40 f4 canon L
50 f1.2 canon L
150 f2.8 sigma
50-500 Sigma
bunch of Sigma crop sensor lenses for the 20d
10-22sigma
18-55 f2.8
18-200 sigma

I do all sorts of photography see some photos at www.guyhageman.co.uk

do a lot of theater stuff so 2.8 very useful.. now considering the 400 f2.3 is..

thanks again for your replies.. Guy

You have a pretty wide range of stuff as it is! For theatre stuff would a good sturdy tripod (carbon fibre for carrying around when birding?) be useful. I would look at the 500 rather than the 400 f2.8 as price and weight are pretty much the same so why not go for the greater reach? You have 400 covered anyway and you can always stick a 1.4 converter on the 500 and extend it out to 700 with excellent quality and maintain autofocus. You also have no macro or flash equipment so that is another area to consider and would open up a whole new area of photography for you to explore. Just some thoughts.

If it’s for birding then long is not long enough but for theatre stuff the 400mm f2.8 sounds very good too me.