# Lens choice... I'm on the fence.



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

I am going to be renting glass a few times this year and I am starting to second guess myself.

I have the Canon T3i and take waterfowl and hunting scene shots often with my regular lenses, but I was going to rent a lens for a few trips this season for some higher quality shots.

My two options were the 50-200 L series with a 1.4 or 2.0 doubler.... BUT now I am wondering if I should just go with the 100-400 L lens by itself.

Never know what the lighting is going to be like and gotta admit I am a little shy of getting the 100mm as a minimum just because it is so big of a start.

Any suggestions? Will I lose IS with the doubler combined with the 50-200?


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Are you talking about the 70-200? If you are, just keep in mind, unless you want to spend approx 2K (used) for the 70-200 2.8IS II and the 2XIII, the 100-400 would be a better option.
I have the 70-200 2.8 IS v1 and the 2XII, Images are ok, But I think the 100-400 has a bit of an advantage
Now the version 2 of this lens and the better 2xIII, this setup is really outstanding IQ wise.
If you trying to get to a 400mm range, Id go with the 100-400.
Renting is a great idea to checkout the lens.
I use Lensrental .com or borrowedlen.com

http://www.lensrentals.com/for-canon

http://www.borrowlenses.com


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

My apologies.... I meant the 70-200.

I dont really plan on buying one in the near future just because I would only really use it 2-3 week a year. I can rent it for 5-6 years at the price point. Of course, that may all change when I use it.

My biggest worry I guess is losing capabilities of pulling back to 70mm and be stuck at 100 as my lowest zoom.

Some of the pictures I take are not far enough away to successfully use a 100mm lens.... but then again, if I wanted to get down to 70, I would have to take out the doubler anyway.

This photography stuff is so ridiculous... its like you have to carry 3 cameras with you at all times! hahahahaha

How about this, I dont plan on taking in flight pictures past about 40 yards.... and even with that being said, I dont plan on focusing my shots on birds in flight. Mine is mostly dogs and people and decoying birds.


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Sigma has a 50-500 lens, big beast, I use a 150-500 OS for my birds, and again its a big beast.
I know what you mean, I have to carry 2 cameras to get the needed coverage.
Renting isnt a bad way to go. just besure and get the insurance, just incase.
I sometimes rent the Canon 500 f4 II and at 10K new, its sure is nice to have the peace of mind knowing its covered.


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

1) I can't have anything large.... its tight quarters, so a BIG lens is a problem. That has me kind of worried about the 100x400 as well.

2) apparently, their insurance doesnt cover water damage, so I will probably just go through my own insurance and see if I can get a policy to cover it along with some other MISC things.


----------



## Formula4Fish (Apr 24, 2007)

justinsfa said:


> My apologies.... I meant the 70-200.


justinsfa,

You say "the 70-200" like there's only one. There is actually five of them in the *Canon EF Lens lineup*.

The main difference between them is that some are f/2.8 and some are f/4.

Be advised that you will lose one f/stop with a 1.4X and two f/stops with a 2.0X, and who manufactures it is irrelevant. That's true regardless of the brand.

Using an extender with any lens unless it's f/2.8 or faster, you will undoubtedly loose autofocus with the T3i. Even with f/2.8 lenses, there will be restrictions.

Before you get too enthusiastic about using extenders, you should study

*Extender EF 1.4x Compatibility Chart*

*Extender EF 2x Compatibility Chart*

All that said, the *EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM* may well be the best "bang for the buck" lens Canon ever came out with. I believe they've been selling that lens for about 18 years. I doubt you would ever be sorry you bought one.

Dick


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

Before retiring from sports photography, I carried two cameras most of the time, and a wide angle lens in my pocket.

Most of the time on the football field (sideline access), the 300mm is OK but someitmes it is too short! A 400 would be better, and even better on a crop camera.

The bottom line is if your subject is too close, you shold get a really good close up! 
Try the 100-400. I think you will like it.
Mike


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

Thanks for the info and links.

This past weekend sure didnt help me out much. I took some pictures at a buddy mine's new place and was using my 55-250 Canon "kit" lens.

I could really feel the restrictions of taking shots that were PHYSICALLY too close for me. I had to change to my 18-55 quite a few times, but it wasnt a HUGE deal since we were in the truck AND I was on dry ground. That will not be the case in the duck sloughs.

I am really worried about juggling lenses around, especially over water.

What about just the 70-200 by itself? I have seen some photos on here that sure came out good.


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

How about opinions on the 70-300?

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consu...up/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6l_is_usm#Specifications


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

Stargazer, you ever used these guys? They are local and would save me on shipping....

http://shop.photorentalsource.com/


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Yep, Very nice folks, and good quality equiptment.



justinsfa said:


> Stargazer, you ever used these guys? They are local and would save me on shipping....
> 
> http://shop.photorentalsource.com/


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

stargazer said:


> Yep, Very nice folks, and good quality equiptment.


PERFECT! Thanks for the referral.

Thanks to everybody for the tips and knowledge.

Also, I would like to give a Thank You for Russell Graves... I believe he is a member on this site as well. He takes some fantastic outdoors pictures and helped me out with some little details to make my shooting a little easier in the given conditions. Very talented dude.

http://www.russellgraves.com/gallery.html


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

Reserved both lenses and a 1.4 TC and I will just try everything and see whats best... haha...


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

justinsfa said:


> Reserved both lenses and a 1.4 TC and I will just try everything and see whats best... haha...


Thats how I do it, rent the gear and try for yourself.


----------



## pg542 (Oct 9, 2006)

I have the 100-400L and the Canon 1.4 TC. A couple of things: The 100-400 "grows" quite a bit in length(more if the sunshade is attached) when zoomed out to 400 so if close quarters are an issue..?? It hasn't been much of a problem for me and I've used it a lot in some pretty tight deerblinds etc. Second' be advised that when using a 1.4 or 2.0 that your AF function won't work, so manual focus will be necessary. Like any new glass, it takes a while to "learn" it, but it's a really nice lens and for the price, quite versatile..... If you don't have one, a 50 is a great low budget little lens. My camera wears it probably more than anything if I don't want to bring my camera bag with me.


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

pg542 said:


> I have the 100-400L and the Canon 1.4 TC. A couple of things: The 100-400 "grows" quite a bit in length(more if the sunshade is attached) when zoomed out to 400 so if close quarters are an issue..?? It hasn't been much of a problem for me and I've used it a lot in some pretty tight deerblinds etc. Second' be advised that when using a 1.4 or 2.0 that your AF function won't work, so manual focus will be necessary. Like any new glass, it takes a while to "learn" it, but it's a really nice lens and for the price, quite versatile..... If you don't have one, a 50 is a great low budget little lens. My camera wears it probably more than anything if I don't want to bring my camera bag with me.


The "growing" is going to be an issue since I will be a layout blind the majority of the time. I can sneak it out, but not 2ft of lens... haha

The guy at the rental place said the 1.4 and the 70-200 F/2.8 IS L series should maintain its autofocus capabilities, but I a going to test it out in the parking lot before I take off with it.


----------



## pg542 (Oct 9, 2006)

justinsfa said:


> The "growing" is going to be an issue since I will be a layout blind the majority of the time. I can sneak it out, but not 2ft of lens... haha
> 
> The guy at the rental place said the 1.4 and the 70-200 F/2.8 IS L series should maintain its autofocus capabilities, but I a going to test it out in the parking lot before I take off with it.


....ok, now I see the issue and understand completely....I believe Canon or maybe aftermarket makes camo shroud/covers for larger lenses. Maybe that could help a little. Not sure about how zoom and or focus would work with cover in place though....I just googled camo lens covers Canon and a lot of stuff popped up. Just some thoughts........That 100-400 might be hard to send back... if you haven't heard of it yet, check out Canon POTN(photography on the net). It's a site for Canon owners and it is LOADED with tons of useful info on it's forums,classifieds,etc. Just google Canon POTN and your'e there....MTstringer (Mike) turned me on to it.


----------



## Shaky (May 21, 2004)

justinsfa said:


> How about opinions on the 70-300?
> 
> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consu...up/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6l_is_usm#Specifications


Are you renting this lens? I sure would like some feedback if so. It really looks like it would fit the bill for me, I just havent found much feedback on it yet.


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Heres some good info on teleconverters

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41922


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

I tested out the Canon 100-400 (4.5-5.6) vs the 1.4 TC w/ 70-200 (2.8) out today.... 

The addition of the 1.4 TC to the 70-200 did not take away my autofocus ( I have the T3i) and seemed to work fine. It was a bit heavy, but I thought the lack of size change when zooming was pretty cool.

Ended up choosing the 100-400 though just because thats what I chose on eeny-meenie-minie-moe.

I did test shots in the parking lot of moving cars on the road and different stuff in the shadows.... they seemed pretty dang close to me...

Did not have time to test the 70-300... sorry Shaky.

We hit the road tomorrow.... hopefully I made a good random choice... lol


----------



## TexasCurt (Apr 13, 2011)

I rent from Light Tec. Their prices are great, they are super nice, and they are local!

http://www.lighttec.com/houstonrental.html#


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Good deal, the 100-400 is a good lens, you should be pleased with the images you get from it.



justinsfa said:


> I tested out the Canon 100-400 (4.5-5.6) vs the 1.4 TC w/ 70-200 (2.8) out today....
> 
> The addition of the 1.4 TC to the 70-200 did not take away my autofocus ( I have the T3i) and seemed to work fine. It was a bit heavy, but I thought the lack of size change when zooming was pretty cool.
> 
> ...


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

12 days of trekking and I am finally back home. The 100-400 was not fit for my needs.... physically, it was too big and cumbersome, which meant it stayed up in the case most of the time.

The birds didnt cooperate but I did get a few random shots.

One more great reason to rent before buying....

Next trip coming up will be with the 70-300L. Should be easier to manage.


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Was it too long / too heavy or both?


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

stargazer said:


> Was it too long / too heavy or both?


Both.

I shoot out of a layout blind, so quarters are already pretty close... I have been using the kit 55-250 lens in that blind and didnt realize how much just a little more size would hinder movement inside (and I have one of the biggest blinds on the market).

And its way too big to shoot freehand... I could squeeze out 8-10 shots, but then would have to bring it down and throw it back up with some fresh arms.


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

> And its way too big to shoot freehand... I could squeeze out 8-10 shots, but then would have to bring it down and throw it back up with some fresh arms.


Ask Santa for a gym membership for Christmas. 

I know exactly how you feel. The first time I shot a basketball tournament with the 1D MK3 and 70-200 f/2.8, I thought my arms were going to fall off. 8 games per day for three days. Apparently I didn't learn because I did it three years in a row. And that was just one tournament. There were a lot more. 200-350 shot per game.


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

There are options, I use one of these for birds downlow










Also if you dont need a zoom, the 400 5.6 is really light, no IS
300 f4 with Is is another option, add a x1.4III, and the reach is even more.


----------

