 Pamela K |
Which lens to buy? (attn Canon owners) I'm hoping to get the Canon 20D for Christmas. I can only afford one large lens right now. I do a lot of wildlife photography and need a lens that is pretty versatile and has a decent zoom. I have a good tripod, but like to take pictures from my car as well so would need something that can be handheld. I've narrowed it down to one of two lenses. Can anyone tell me what they think of these two, which they'd recommend I get, and why? Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM The second one is slightly cheaper and smaller but the first has a longer zoom. Any suggestions? Feel free to browse my gallery to get a sense of the type of pictures I like to take. I currently have an Olympus with 10x optical zoom (~380mm equivalent to film) plus a 1.7x telephoto extender. Thanks! Pam
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Both have terrific optics and Image Stabilization. The EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM would be preferred if space/weight/concealment are major concerns. It is about 1/2 the size and weight of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, and innocuous black instead of the attention-getting "I'm a Professional" white. The 70-300 DO would be very convenient to use when travelling, but 300mm is a little short for birds and other small/shy wildlife. If size is not a concern, the 100-400 has marginally better optics, longer tele (obviously), and can get even greater reach with the Canon EF tele-extenders. The Canon EF 1.4x and EF 2x cannot be mounted to the 70-300 DO, but third party Kenko and Tamron TC's can be used. But at a 1 stop handicap to the 100-400L. 70-300 DO with 1.4x gets to 420mm, but at f/8 instead of f/5.6.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pamela K |
Thank you, Jon! I guess I'll have to figure out what I'll be doing the most for the next couple of years until I can afford the second lens. I really appreciate your detailed response! Pam
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||