Help Me Spend My Money

I'm looking at buying some lenses for my Canon EOS-1D Mark III. Here are my choices:

Zooms:
-Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM AF
-Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM AF

HELP ME PICK OUT A GOOD PRIME LENS!

Those are both zooms.

If you want a prime, how about a EF 400mm F/2.8L IS ?

Sorry, silly questions deserve silly answers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmAlbany

Those are both zooms.
If you want a prime, how about a EF 400mm F/2.8L IS ?
Sorry, silly questions deserve silly answers

---

I know those are both zooms. Out of those two choices, which one would be better for plane spotting?

Ooopppsss, looks like your the silly one!!!!

moderator hat on:

CanonKid, you listed zoom lenses to choose from and then asked for a prime lens. That is confusing, hence SmAlbany's response.

SmAlbany, no need for that comment.

So let's cut the silliness all around.

Mod hat off.

Yeah your right, my bad. Sorry 'bout that.

Well, when you start out with a topic called "Help Me Spend My Money", I'm tempted to give you my address where you can send the checks, but Mario said we should stop the silliness all around, so...for spotting, the 100-400L is a very good lens. You will find many of us here use it with much success. It gives you the reach you need, especially spotting around JFK.

Here are a few examples with it on a 40D:

http://moose135.smugmug.com/photos/3...29_3tLqW-L.jpg

http://moose135.smugmug.com/photos/3...58_iqMXM-L.jpg

http://moose135.smugmug.com/photos/3..._2AYmh-L-1.jpg

Would the Canon 300mm f/4L IS USM with a tc on it be a good choice? What would that turn out to be, a 600mm?

i have the 300 F4 with a 1.4X teleconverter and i love it...general reports seem to indicate that the 100-400 is not as sharp as the 300 (I would tend to agree though they are both incredibly sharp). The IS on the 300 is incredible. With a 1.4X, you get a 420mm F5.6 with IS...So essentially you end up with 2 primes for the price of one, and they both have IS. Also from what I understand, using a 2X teleconverter compromises image quality greatly as you lose both autofocus and 2 stops of light. The 1.4 only minorly slows the AF and only sacrifices one stop. In my opinion, the 300 F4 with the 1.4X tc is the best prime set up as opposed to the 100-400, but they are both great options. Personally, I'd rather go with the 600 F4. In the meantime, here are a couple of my shots with the 300 and the 1.4X.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3220/...b4bff6.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/...3e3c42.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3236/...317fcd.jpg?v=0

I think a lot of it depends how much money you have at your disposal.

I bought the 100-400 myself and love it. But it isn't a 400/500/600mm prime (which I rented one weekend), which honestly I would very much like to have. I don't have the money for one of those lenses, and unless I win the lottery I don't play or my college loans pay themselves off, I won't for some time. For it's money - I think you get a lot to the dollar for the 100-400. When you add that to the body you have, well, I can imagine it really showcases the lenses full capabilities. But when it comes down to it - it isn't a high-end prime - and after using one (and even moreso if you own one), it shows. Would I buy the 100-400 again? Absolutely. Canon's high end primes, wonderful though they are, can be limiting. When I used the 400mm for a weekend (including sports and planes) I found myself feeling restricted a lot - at least with the planes. But the quality was sharp as a tack and great.

To me it depends a lot too on what your primary use for the lens is. Is a prime lens, wonderful though they are, going to suit your needs best?-or would the options that a telephoto provides hit the spot, or vice versa? If I take a 300mm or 400mm prime to Paine or Boeing Field to shoot 777's (or even 737's) - I'd only end up with nose shots. For GA though, a prime like that would be perfect. It would depend a lot to me too whether I'd have consistent uses for it outside of planes. I really want to get into better sports photography - in which case I can already tell you the 100-400 isn't great for low-light games - the 4.5-5.6 is very limiting. Some of the primes are a beautiful 2.8 - and I know that makes a huge difference.

I dunno, I'm done rambling. Hope this helps a little bit.

Yeah it helped me out a lot, thank you very much.