DSLRUsers.com

I have the 400D which is obviously the entry-level model for Canon DSLR. I'm deciding on a lense to buy and it's a toss-up between the 100-400 or the 200L f2.8 prime.

I've heard people rant and rave about the clarity of this lense so I'm thinking maybe I can take my photography to the next level (would like to do out-door portrait type stuff). Am I kidding myself with the 400D (small sensor)? and should I juse invest in the more versatile 100-400L? (and get into some surf photography) or will I still get all the benefits of the prime even with my cheaper 400D sensor?

EVENTUALLY, I plan to upgrade to the 5D, but any time soon is out of the question. Right now I only have the kit lense (paper weight) and the 50mm 1.8 prime.

any advice appreciated.

ref: FredMiranda user-reviews
100-400
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... =27&page=1
200 prime
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... t=2&page=1
96 reviewers averaged 9.8 out of 10

Hey
i've got a D40 and i bought a sigma 30mm and now a Nikon 70-200 VR.. and soon a sigma 10-20
i know many people would probably think i'm crazy, but yea, couldnt help myself...
also i started with a P&S nikon 5400 and bought many accessories with that (cheap fisheyes etc from ebay).

i think u'll benefit in the high iso department if you plan to get one of those bigger sensor Canons.

dont quote me though i dont consider myself a pro.

Actually,

You're absolutely on the right track.

The second most important element in your photography is the glass that you use, and the better the glass, the better your images are likely to be. By acquiring high quality glass, you can upgrade your body relatively inexpensively to take advantage of the facilities that the better bodies offer, but as your skill levels improve.

So now the only difficult choice is which of those lenses .... do you really need the reach that the 100-300 offers you? Why ?

What sort of shooting do you do?

Does the smaller physical sensor size cause you issues? Not in the slightest.

The so-called entry level DSLR's are pretty damn good IMHO.

As to the glass, I would not opt for the push-pull 100-400, yes it has IS, yes it is a good lens, but I don't think it would be that suitable for outdoor portraits, and remember it does not have a constant aperture throughout the focal range, I also think you will be limited with the 200 f2.8 prime...

Realistically I'd look to a 85 f1.2 (if you can stretch the budget) or the 70-200 f2.8 (IS version) as a great candid lens.

Brett

Consider the 24-105 f4 L IS as well if you want a tad more versatility. Sure you might not have 200mm range but 24-105 covers a fair bit especially with the crop factor.

If your bugdet doesn't stretch to the 70-200 F/2.8IS then consider the 70-200 F/4IS - Especially if you're going to be shooting outdoors (presumably where there's enough light )

The smaller sensor is actually better as it only used the center of the lens and stays away from edge softness.

spasmoid wrote: I'm deciding on a lense to buy and it's a toss-up between the 100-400 or the 200L f2.8 prime.

The "e" series is usually more expensive.

And they're also heavier.

Good pickup, Trevor.

petal666 wrote:The smaller sensor is actually better as it only used the center of the lens and stays away from edge softness.

In theory, yes, especially for lenses built for FF sensors. For lenses built for cropped sensors you may still find loss of sharpness at the edges.

gstark wrote:Actually,
So now the only difficult choice is which of those lenses .... do you really need the reach that the 100-300 offers you? Why ?

What sort of shooting do you do?

Well, that's just it, I guess I was saying there are two major areas of photography that I feel open to right now, they are:
1) Surfing (and other sports)(pro) / candids (art)
2) Portraiture (art) with a view to clothing and beachware catalogs (pro)

OPTION1

On the one hand, the reach and flexibility of the 100-400 (roughly $2,200) really appeals to the "hunter" instinct in me. I like the idea of moving through the world with the ability to snap life and people "in-situ" (candid situations) within a larger sphere of reach that the 100-400mm offers. I also like the flexibility (decent range for the quality). This is to satisfy my artistic appetite.

Technically, this is a good entry-level lens into surf photography. I figure, as long as I am living on the Gold Coast, it might be fun to explore this subject both artistically and perhaps semi-professionally (depending on how successful I am).

While I'd definately take advantage of the IS on it, this lense isn't going to be anywhere nearly as sharp as a prime (or non-IS).

If I do get into surf photography and sell photos, the next step would be to get a water-proof housing. But that is a totally different thread.

OPTION2

I'm really very interested in portraiture at the moment. I have been since I bought my happy snapping camera back in 2003, and now even more so with my DSLR. I know I can get some decent portraits with my 50mm 1.8, but it would be nice to have the compressing capabilities that the telephoto offers. The kicker with this lense is the [apparent] picture quality. Averaging 9.8 out of 10 for 96 reviews is quite an acheivement and it's got me fantasising about how I can get some outstanding images. I realise artistic photography isn't about image clarity! but it sure is nice to have :)
This would also open up possibilities for commercial applications. I would be in closer reach of being able to produce posters for clothing companies in so far as a 10MP DSLR would let me. At least the clarity of the lense wouldn't be a contributing limitation. Obviously $10,000 would allow me to buy equipment more up to the task, but I am not there with that cost-justification yet. The 200 2.8 would be quite frustratingly inflexible for regular use, but I am prepared to sacrifice that for the less frequent, more specialised, "killer capture". In any case, on the artistic side, there is the argument about being forced outside your comfort zone when framing in-situ. I'm used to that with my 50mm so flexibility isn't the be-all/end-all for me. The thing is, I can get this level of picture quality for a mere $1,100.

The other nice bonus about this lense is that it is very light. Another major bonus is that it doesn't have the "look at me, I'm a pro" factor.

Does the 70-200 maintain f2.8 all the way out to 200?
I think that lense is too expensive for what it is. (actually they are all too expensive for an ameture really, but that's another issue)

I wouldn't get the 70-200 F4 since that's not enough aperture for that range for me.

I think my 400D's crop gives me a multiplier of 1.6 the normal FF. I could be wrong though. I'd have to check.

Yes! I absolutely love the 85mm 1.2 (drool drool). It was the 3rd option I was considering, but I simply cannot afford it right now. My car is worth $2k. So my first real lense purchase may exceed the price of my car (if I get the 100-400). Hmmmm lets not go there...

Perhaps I should get the 100-400 to have fun with until I can afford the 85 at which point I can REALLY go for it with the portraiture. By the time I could afford that, I'd probably upgrade the body anyway. I'm setting my sites on the FF 5D.

You've all answered my question re: the sensor's relevence/impact. Thanks.


VERDICT

I'll probably end up getting the prime due to the price. It will give me PLENTY of scope to work on my skills. The only limitation will be me, not the equipment.

Although, I can always snap the locals, the surf comps aren't coming to town until the end of the year. I will eventually get the 100-400 though. If I can't afford it by the time the surf comp comes to town, I will get the 2x converter and bolt it onto the 200 prime. That decision is thanks to the advice about the sensor being centred. I would need to buy a decent triod when I get the 2x converter. The only limitation would be tracking moving surfers without the IS.

Awesome advice people. Thanks. Love this forum, and I've only made 6 posts ;)

ATJ wrote:In theory, yes, especially for lenses built for FF sensors. For lenses built for cropped sensors you may still find loss of sharpness at the edges.

We are not talking EF-S lenses here. These are all FF lenses.

Does the 70-200 maintain f2.8 all the way out to 200?
I think that lense is too expensive for what it is. (actually they are all too expensive for an ameture really, but that's another issue)

It's is constant f/2.8. It is also considered one of the best zooms out there and worth every $

The Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS is the flagship pro lens for Canon. It is great for portraits and everything else, not really long enough for surf action unless you can do what I do and perch out on a rock somewhere near the waves, or maybe add a 1.4TC? It autofocusses instantly and is very versatile. It just costs a packet but hey, you get what you pay for.

The way the prices are coming down with the rise in the Aussie $$ and all, even the best is becoming more affordable. I remember when the 70-200 f/2.8 IS was $3500, I paid $2500 and now you can pick it up for $2199.

where did you see the 70-200 for that price?

We have it, for suitably qualified members, for just $2125, delivered to your very door.

You have read our FAQ, haven't you?