Lens Selection Advice: Canon L Series

[RyDawg82]

Howdy,
I am finally in a position to go ahead and upgrade from my trusty, yet very basic lenses, and go for some Canon L glass that I have been drooling over for sometime. However, I am having a bit of trouble deciding which route to go.

Basically the two lenses in the running are:
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM + EF 1.4x II Extender

I really feel I could benefit from the 400mm; however, I have heard some complaints of performance over 300mm. I have also heard I would be really benefit to have that f/2.8 as I would have many more lighting options. Can you share your experiences and recommendations for me? Someone earlier simply told me to get both of them, aside from the drain on the wallet, wouldn't this be a little bit of overkill?

Also if a person were deciding to have an initial set of 2-3 lenses (L glass or other high-end) in their fleet, what would be a good lens for say: wide-angle, medium range, and then of course my zoom lens. I primarily spot just airplanes, sometimes up close (Including cabins and ramp shots), other times from afar. I also need the ability to turn out great landscape shots, and then of course people.

I am just getting back into photography after a 2 year break due to injury, so I appreciate your help.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, I am using the Canon Rebel XTi (400D).
Ryan (from Alaska) in Texas

[pgengler]

Most of the complaints about the 100-400 @ 400, or any other long telephoto zoom for that matter, are almost always about the lens' performance wide open (in the case of the 100-400, f/5.6). Once you've stopped down to f/8 (or maybe f/11) it gets a lot better.

I've heard a lot of negative comments about using extenders with zooms; they tend to work better with prime lenses and even then they aren't great. However, I sometimes shoot with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Sigma 2x teleconverter, and stopped down to f/8 I'm impressed with how sharp the images are.

Keep in mind that with the 70-200+1.4x TC, you're ended up with a 98-280 lens. You haven't gained much on the far end, and you're still 120mm from the 400. However, the 100-400 is a rather limited-use lens; it doesn't lend itself to most situations outside of plane spotting or birdwatching. The 70-200 is more useful as a general-purpose telephoto.

For just plane spotting, I'd recommend the 100-400.

With regard to other lenses, I have the 24-70 f/2.8L and I love it. It's a great range, even on a crop body, and the image quality is outstanding. For really wide stuff, I picked up the EF-S 10-22mm; it doesn't work on full-frame bodies, but on a crop body it gives the same range as the 16-35L (which I haven't used, but I've heard good things about).

[PhilDernerJr]

Welcome to the site, Ryan!! To all, Ryan is a good friend, take care of him!

The 100-400 is the standard spotting lens I think. It gives you the range that you often need to operate at most airports. Though a little softer when fully extended, you'll get good results with it as an all around good lens.

Teleconverters can be tough. The 2.0 sacrifices AF, which is important in what we do. The 1.4 I've never used, but I've heard ok things. I'd much rather have the 100-400 instead of using a 70-200, like some others employ.

However, if you will only be using your lens for very specific places where you can get close, the 70-200 could be the lens for you. But I guarantee there will be times where there's a shot yo want that will be just out of reach that you'll wish you had a 400mm without the hassle of the teleconverter.

[pgengler]

Teleconverters can be tough. The 2.0 sacrifices AF, which is important in what we do. The 1.4 I've never used, but I've heard ok things. I'd much rather have the 100-400 instead of using a 70-200, like some others employ.

Whether a 2x TC will cost you AF depends on the lens you're using it with. Canon cameras will only try autofocusing when the lens reports it can be f/5.6 or wider. The 2x TC makes the lens two stops slower, so an f/4 lens becomes a (longer) f/8 and an f/5.6 becomes f/11. However, an f/2.8 lens (like the 70-200 f/2.8L) becomes an f/5.6 with the TC, so it would still autofocus. You could also stack converters, with a Canon 1.4x and another brand 1.4x (because the Canon ones only work with certain lenses), and the end result is that only one TC will be reported to the camera. The image will be darker, and the camera might have issues autofocusing, but it'll still make it in good light.

[SmAlbany]

I use the 70-200 F/4 and the 1.4TC. I think that the TC may degrade picture quality slightly but it's hard to know whether it's the TC or photographer error. Better to use the TC than to crop severely.

As far as focal lengths go, at my airport (ALB) 70-200 is usually plenty of range since I am normally right at the fence. I use the TC in a couple of spots where I shoot from farther away. It is my understanding from reading this forum that NYC airports need 400mm a lot more often than I would. I actually have the opposite problem. For me, sometimes 70 isn't wide enough. I got myself a 17-40 for those occaisions (also for other non-av uses)

I agree with commenters above. If all you will do is shoot aircraft in NYC, the 100-400 is probably the way to go. If you plan on shooting other subjects/locations the 70-200 might provide extra options.

Good luck,
Dan