new lens which one?

N

negative

Suspended / Banned
Messages
24
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Getting a new lens next year and would like some advice please. Been looking at 3 lens and would like to know what the differance between them.

1) Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5/5.6L USM Image Stabilised

2) Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

3) Canon EF 28-300mm F3.5-5.6 L IS USM

I am after a good zoom lens Am i right in thinking that i would get more zoom from 1 & 2? They are both the same price, but 1 is a zoom type and 2 is Fixed Focal Length, what does that mean? Also it says about number 1 that its compatible with Extenders 1.4x and 2x. If what i have read, does this mean that if i use one of those i can get more zoom? and can you get them for number 2 as well, and even number 3? and finaly what would the differance be btween 1&2 compared to 3


Canon 450d Canon EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS Lens Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L USM
 
First of all a zoom means a lens that can change it's focal length. For instance that 28-300 can zoom from a wide angle (28mm) to 300mm which is a big range for a lens to zoom through.

The 100-400 will zoom from 100mm to 400 mm which doesn't have the wide end at all of the previous lens but a bit more magnification at the other end.

Number 2 is as you've said a fixed focal length lens (or prime is another name for it). Primes usually have a sharper image than zoom lenses on the whole as it can be finely tuned for it's particular focal length and has a lesser amount of lens elements inside it to soften the image. It will permanently be magnified as if you are fully zoomed in with number 1.... so you won't have the adaptability of the zoom lens but possibly gain some image quality.

The other difference between those lenses are that 1 and 3 have image stabilisation, which helps you overcome camera shake in lower light situations.

Which lens is for you depends on what you want to take pictures of. 1 or 2 would probably be the best wildlife lenses for instance (number 2 would be harder to use due to it not having image stabilisation).

Number 3 is a sort of general use super-zoom which doesn't seem to get mentioned much on forums. It would also have less magnification than the other 2.

The extenders you mentioned would leave you with using manual focus as the 450D can only autofocus properly with lenses with a F5.6 aperture or larger.


Out of the 3 lenses the 100-400 is probably the most popular because its quite adaptable to a situation with its zoom range, has image stabilisation and good image quality.
 
They are three very different lenses. What do you want to use your new lens for?

The 100-400L is a very popular telephoto zoom for wildlife, birds, aircraft, some sports, etc. The zoom range is a very useful one, the IS helps you steady avoid camera shake, and optically it's pretty good.

The 400L is a highly specialised lens which is really optimised for photographing birds in flight. It doesn't zoom and it doesn't have IS because you don't need those things for that kind of photography. Leaving those things out allows it to be smaller, lighter and cheaper - and very very very sharp. It's not a jack of all trades but it is definitely a master of one.

The 28-300L has a huge zoom range from a moderate wide-angle to a decently long telephoto. It's the kind of lens you might carry if you can't afford to waste time changing lenses but want to eb equipped for anything. I know people who use it for weddings and for sports such as rugby. Designing a lens with an 11x zoom ratio inevitably involves compromises, and so optically it simply can't be as good as the 100-400L and the 400L, but it's not bad.

Personally, if I were you I wouldn't be thinking of spending £1000 or more without a clearer idea of what i wanted, and a clearer understanding of which lens suited my needs.
 
Am looking to take wildlife, birds, aircraft, local football, and when i am on my walks i have came across a load of things buiding, windmills, etc which you can not get close too, so looking to get a lens that would bring them pretty close
 
the 100-400mm is a great zoom lens and will be better than 28-300 optically. The 400 will be to restrictive.

i would suggest the 100-400 as long as you have lenses to cover other focal ranges i.e 17- 100mm
 
My advice would be to hire each one individually, shot the same kind of things with each and then decide. £1000 is a hell of a lot of money to spend and then find the lens just doesnt suit you/do what you want.

Strewart does an excellent service (and no, he hasn't paid me to say that! :lol:), and it might just save you from an expensive mistake. I have the 100-400mm lens and it is brilliant for anthing thats far away and moving! I have also used the x2 converter on it, giving it a massive reach, but if handholding at that stretch, remember every tiny hand movement is magnified, so a tripod or rest of some kind gets more vital. I personally would avoid the really wide range zooms as the image quality tends to be a bit poor. Good enough for snaps........but you will very quickly move on from that stage!
 
A couple of questions ref 33L ans. I have a Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L USM, so i would need something to cover 70mm to 100mm? And the 100-400mm, is this only effective from 100-400mm, would you not be ables to take photos under 100mm whith this lens?
 
its not physically possible to reduce the focal length of the lens any lower than 100mm .

I have built up my kit slightly differently. I am going for the 70-200 f2.8 IS first, then be l will be looking at a 24-70 2.8 either from the sigma or canon camp depending on reviews on the new sigma version due sometime soon. after the 70-200 if i need more reach i will probably start looking at a longer lenses in the for of the 100-400 L or a 400 prime but not sure which variant yet, or whether it will be cost effective as generally not a big lens shooter.
 
what do you mean by its not physically possible to reduce the focal length of the lens any lower than 100mm? would i be able to take photos if they are nearer then 100mm
 
negative said:
what do you mean by its not physically possible to reduce the focal length of the lens any lower than 100mm? would i be able to take photos if they are nearer then 100mm
Click to expand...

I think you've got focal length and minimum focussing distance mixed up.
 
in short no you cant shoot under 100mm with the 100-400mm lens.

to shoot between 70-100mm you need another lens or putting an extender on the 24-70 which will make it a 33-98mm f/4 with some loss in Image quality. ( i have seen this done but i dont know if it's worth it..

You really need to think in the bigger picture than jsut another lens.
questions to ask your self.
1/ what focal lengths do you need now and what do you need (not want) to get the shot.
2/ do you need fast glass for the shots i.e large apertures?
3/ what is you budget?
 
Getting even more confusing lol
my budget is about 1500 and have not got a clue about, do you need fast glass for the shots i.e large apertures? just want to be able to zoom into things, do not know anything about apertures etc
and Alex could you explain please "I think you've got focal length and minimum focussing distance mixed up".
 
That 100mm refers to the focal length of the lens, NOT the minimum focal distance.
I suspect you are getting VERY confused here?

There are no wide angle converters for DSLR lenses. Only 1.4, or 2X TELE converters, to give you more reach, at the cost of losing light. You get closer, but things get darker.

Please research more, and then decide what you need?
 
negative said:
Getting even more confusing lol
my budget is about 1500 and have not got a clue about, do you need fast glass for the shots i.e large apertures? just want to be able to zoom into things, do not know anything about apertures etc
and Alex could you explain please "I think you've got focal length and minimum focussing distance mixed up".
Click to expand...

my advice with that statement alone would be to save the £1500, and understand there is more to jsut pressing the shutter button. If you dont know how aperture affects images then a expensive lens isnt going to help much. sorry if this sounds harsh.
 
:agree:

I think if you have that money to spend, you will be better taking some time to understand the basics before taking the plunge. If not, you will buy a lens now and then once you have a better understanding and also a better idea of what you want to shoot and why, there is every chance you will regret your original purchase.

Photography isn't about just zooming in and taking pictures of things far away, you need to think much wider than this. Read a lot, research the lenses you want first. It will be much better for you in the long run.
 
no does not sound harsh, hoping to learn all about these things in time, but do not want to buy something not so good because i do not know what i am doing, but would sooner buy something decent, (with help) and then i have got it when i have learnt. One other thing i have been reading about the 100 400 and came across this a lot. push pull zoom, could some one explain please
 
Push pull zoom on the 100-400, very intuitive I think.

Very simply, with other zooms you twist the barrel to get a different focal length - eg 100mm or 250mm. With the 100-400 you push the lens in and out to get the different lengths.

Regarding a lens, I think you would be better starting out with something like a 55-250 IS. Great lens for the money - about £180 and will no doubt lead on to better things when you have played around with your style and decided how you want to proceed. Alternatively hire the lens you fancy, and go from there.
 
Push pull zoom is exactly as described, instead of a rotating ring for zoom which is common on most lenses these days the push pull mechanism requires you to push to zoom further into a scene and pull to zoom out, some like it some hate it.

If you really must spend this money (which I don't think you should) then I would rent the lenses you are considering so you can see if they do what you need, I suspect you want the 100-400L but when you get it you maybe disapointed.
 
with a normal lens you twist the barrel to zoom but with the 100 -400 you push the lens to zoom in and pull the lens towards you to zoom out.

some people like it some dont it migh t be worth having a play in a shop to see if you like it.

Fair point with wanting decent kit now but its a lot of money for something you dont know will work for your needs.

I would suggest another lens completely. The 70-300 IS USM lens. Its a very sharp lens and at £300+ its probably a better value lens to learn with. If you do then want to upgrade your lenses you will be able to take you£1500 and make an informed purchase.

Another bit of advice is get the book 'Understanding Exposure' It helped me greatly with the technical side of things with photography that confused me like you feel now.
 
negative said:
no does not sound harsh, hoping to learn all about these things in time, but do not want to buy something not so good because i do not know what i am doing, but would sooner buy something decent, (with help) and then i have got it when i have learnt. One other thing i have been reading about the 100 400 and came across this a lot. push pull zoom, could some one explain please
Click to expand...

As you said, push / pull, (like a pump), this is quite a unique lens (100-400) and very versitile, but the mechanism does put some people off, it does take some getting use to.

However, if you asking questions like this, the best thing you can do is do some more reading up on the lenses you have selected and also go to your camera shop to physically look at them, although you may only get to see the 100-400mm, the other 2 lenses (400 & 28-300) won't usually be on display or in the shop (bit more specialised), try and see if you can hire them out for the day, this usually doesn't cost that much, try before you buy, it can be an expensive mistake to make.

Peter
 
I know its not on your list but the 70-200 f2.8is with a 1.4 tele-converter would be worth considering,its fast has i.s and with the tele a bit of reach,it matches your 24-70 as well:thinking:
 
yes i was looking at a Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L USM Image Stabiliser but thought i would not get the zoom like i would on a 300 or 400. Basicaly i am after a good zoom lens, the more zoom the better, with in my budget
 
If you think you would need a 100-400 why not do as others have suggested and hire one for a couple of weeks to try it out, then you will know if you do want that range.
If you buy mint second hand lenses you could also get a 70-200 f/4L as a lighter weight in between zoom for when you don't need the reach of the 100-400, and still be within your budget.
 
not into try before you buy, personally thinks its a waste of money, all though i understand what you are saying. I need, or should i say i want a zoom lens, in a ideal world i would go and spend about £6000+ can not afford that luxury, but do not mind spending up to my budget, so would like to know the best one for my budget and live with it.
 
I agree totally with the above. You need to understand the basics of exposure and the basics of DSLR components BEFORE you go spending large amounts of money without the basic knowledge to make an informed decision on your purchase. Get yourself down the local book shop and buy yourself £25 worth of reading before you waste £1000.
 
Don't buy any of those lenses you've listed. The only appropriate one is the 100-400mm but it's very big and heavy, and you'll do much better with a more general purpose zoom like the 70-300mm IS that several people have suggested. It's a premium lens that will hold its value if you want to trade it in some time, but I somehow doubt that you will :) Just go for it and see how you get on - at this stage there are just too many more specialised options to consider.

On the learning front, have a read of this. It should be right up your street ;)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=99841

Best regards,

Richard.
 
100-400 is a great lens, but weighs a ton!
 
gwgw said:
I know its not on your list but the 70-200 f2.8is with a 1.4 tele-converter would be worth considering,its fast has i.s and with the tele a bit of reach,it matches your 24-70 as well:thinking:
Click to expand...

I own the 70-200mm f2.8, fantastic lens for closeup motorsport, the problem lies when you add the 1.4x TC, this is not a great combination and I get better results from my 300mm f4 prime and don't even try the 2x TC on it, I'm not knocking the lens, just it's performance with the TC's is not good. The 70-200 + TC will set you back £1300 (UK), the 300mm prime about £900.

As for the 100-400mm being heavy, try the sigma 120-300mm f2.8, canon's 300mm f2.8 (both 2.5kg) or the 400mm f2.8 (5kg), now they're heavy lenses, but still hand holdable for motorsports etc.

The 100-400mm is a very versitile lens and very popular, as mentioned, will only autofocus on the 1D series camera's with a 1.4 or 2x TC.

The 20D.....400D....5D etc will only autofocus a lens that is f5.6 when combined with a TC. 1.4x TC loses 1 f-stop of light, the 2x TC loses 2 f-stops of light. So a 70-200mm f2.8 will come either a 98x280mm f4 (1.4x TC) or 140x400mm f5.6 (2x TC) lens).

The 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS (£350) is a great gem of a lens for the money, it sold faster than they could restock the shelves when it was released, another great lens is the sigma 100-300mm f4 (£750) which is one of sigma's best zooms.

Do you research, try out the lenses in the shop and you don't have to pay a fortune for a good lens

Peter
 
I would like to add my vote for the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM, I have one myself and I have always been very pleased with the results.

Whilst I would agree, in part with your thoughts on only buying once, and then not being forced to upgrade later, I really do think the 70-300mm lens would be a great place to start and it is certainly a whole lot cheaper!

With regard to the Canon 28-300mm from what little I have seen about that lens the reviews don't seem to be that great and it is also a weighty beast too at 1670g. This is against 1360g for the 100-400mm and 1250g for the 400mm.

Whilst as someone else said, any 28-300mm lens is going to be a compromise, but if you really like the idea of one then another option might be a Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC for about £450 as not only is it cheaper, it is also much lighter (I think under half the weight of the others). My girlfriend has one on her 450D and she is pleased with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top