More reach for my 6D?

[mom2rtk]

I've been thrilled with my switch to full frame. I generally don't miss the extra reach I get with my lenses. I shot my son's college graduation this weekend with my 70-200 f/4L IS and was very happy with the quality I got in spite of some pretty substantial crops.

We're heading to Sanibel in a couple weeks and once again I'm wondering if I'll be happy with the 200mm length. I have no way of knowing if we'll see wildlife I want more reach to photograph. But I might. And the boys are parasailing one day so I could see myself wanting some extra reach for that.

Anyway, if I decide to go for some extra reach, I'd be curious to know what direction some of you would recommend. I can rent an extender. I assume since I'd be shooting outdoors losing a stop or 2 of light wouldn't be a dealbreaker.

Another option would be to rent the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM.

Other suggestions or thoughts on the best way to go?

 

[havoc315]

Do you feel you need a zoom or would you consider a prime?
When I know I'm shooting at the long end primarily anyway, I go for a prime. Understanding I may lose a few shots closer up.

I'm not a canon shooter but I know they have some great telephoto primes. And of course they just updated the 100-400.

I'm not a fan of 70-300 lenses on full frame. Sacrificing quality compared to the good 70-200 lenses, and getting only a little bit of extra reach. (At least a 300 prime gives you stellar iq and can extend further with teleconverters).

 

[mom2rtk]

Do you feel you need a zoom or would you consider a prime?
When I know I'm shooting at the long end primarily anyway, I go for a prime. Understanding I may lose a few shots closer up.

I'm not a canon shooter but I know they have some great telephoto primes. And of course they just updated the 100-400.

I'm not a fan of 70-300 lenses on full frame. Sacrificing quality compared to the good 70-200 lenses, and getting only a little bit of extra reach. (At least a 300 prime gives you stellar iq and can extend further with teleconverters).

I guess part of the problem is that I'm not sure what I'll want to be shooting. I think I probably would prefer to stick with a zoom though to avoid changing lenses out in windy or sandy conditions.

Valid point though about not gaining a lot in reach to make up for the loss in quality. That 70-200 f/4 really has been nice.

Would I lose quality with an extender or is it just loss of light?

 

[SkaGoat]

You could always give the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM a try. I've read nothing but good things about IQ with the L 70-300mm lens, it's definitely better than the non-L 70-300mm.

 

[mom2rtk]

You could always give the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM a try. I've read nothing but good things about IQ with the L 70-300mm lens, it's definitely better than the non-L 70-300mm.

I completely missed that the rental company here in town has that one available as well. I would definitely want to go that route if I decide to rent a zoom.

 

[SkaGoat]

I owned the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and wasn't happy with it, noisy IS, slow AF, and not as sharp as the 70-200mm f/4 I replaced it with. I have been much happier with it.

With that said, here are a couple photos I took with the Non-L 70-300mm

Heron in flight by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

Spring Juke by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

Spring Mallard by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

The Heron and the Mallard are heavily cropped, but the car is not cropped at all, these are all taken with a crop camera (7D).

 

[mom2rtk]

I owned the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and wasn't happy with it, noisy IS, slow AF, and not as sharp as the 70-200mm f/4 I replaced it with. I have been much happier with it.

With that said, here are a couple photos I took with the Non-L 70-300mm

Heron in flight by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

Spring Juke by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

Spring Mallard by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

The Heron and the Mallard are heavily cropped, but the car is not cropped at all, these are all taken with a crop camera (7D).

Thanks so much for your feedback on that lens!

 

[havoc315]

My experience with teleconverters comes from Sony/Minolta and Nikon. I suspect Canon is similar.

You do lose some resolution and can get an increase in CA. The degree partially depends on the lens you pair with -- zooms will lose more iq than primes.
The iq loss with 1.4 teleconverters is minimal. But 2x teleconverters can lead to significant softness and bad ca.

I have the Nikon 70-200/4. Images are still exceptional with the 1.4 converter. But with the 2x converter, images are so-so. May be better off cropping.
Conversely, when paired with my 300/4 prime, the 2x teleconverter still produces very very good images. Probably still as good as you get from a 150-600 zoom at 600.

Example of the 300/4 with 2x converter:

Grackle by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Example of the 2x converter on a 70-200/4:

Birding with Nikon D750 plus 70-200/4 + TCE-2.0III by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[nbaresejr]

This shot was with the 70-300L. I borrowed it from my cousin when I went to the Masters Golf Tournament. The L version of the 70-300 is fantastic and if I needed more reach I would go to that lens in a heartbeat.

Approach on 9. by Nick Barese, on Flickr

 

[boBQuincy]

I performed a completely unscientific test of my 70-200 f/4 with and without Canon's 1.4x converter. I could see no difference in sharpness or CA. Of course there must be some difference but even at 100% it was not visible to me.

Now then, I found that when I needed more than 200 I really needed more like 400, not 280. Rent the big guns!

 

[mom2rtk]

My experience with teleconverters comes from Sony/Minolta and Nikon. I suspect Canon is similar.

You do lose some resolution and can get an increase in CA. The degree partially depends on the lens you pair with -- zooms will lose more iq than primes.
The iq loss with 1.4 teleconverters is minimal. But 2x teleconverters can lead to significant softness and bad ca.

I have the Nikon 70-200/4. Images are still exceptional with the 1.4 converter. But with the 2x converter, images are so-so. May be better off cropping.
Conversely, when paired with my 300/4 prime, the 2x teleconverter still produces very very good images. Probably still as good as you get from a 150-600 zoom at 600.

Example of the 300/4 with 2x converter:

Grackle by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Example of the 2x converter on a 70-200/4:

Birding with Nikon D750 plus 70-200/4 + TCE-2.0III by Adam Brown, on Flickr

You really make me want to rent a 300mm prime and a 2X teleconverter.

I'm excited that the Ding Darling Nature Preserve will be open again on this trip (the road through was being repaved on our last trip). So hopefully we'll find some wildlife to shoot. But honestly, I have no way of knowing what I'll find there or how far away it will be. So I think I'm pretty sold on needing a zoom of some sort.

 

[mom2rtk]

This shot was with the 70-300L. I borrowed it from my cousin when I went to the Masters Golf Tournament. The L version of the 70-300 is fantastic and if I needed more reach I would go to that lens in a heartbeat.

Approach on 9. by Nick Barese, on Flickr

I'm really considering this as an option. Thanks for posting an example for me!

 

[mom2rtk]

I performed a completely unscientific test of my 70-200 f/4 with and without Canon's 1.4x converter. I could see no difference in sharpness or CA. Of course there must be some difference but even at 100% it was not visible to me.

Now then, I found that when I needed more than 200 I really needed more like 400, not 280. Rent the big guns!

And that's a very valid point. I just don't know if 280 is worth it. For that matter, I'm not sure if 300 is worth it either.

Of course it doesn't help that the last few times we got to visit Ding Darling, we didn't find much to shoot. Hopefully we'll do better this time. I am fairly certain if I pass on renting something to get me more reach I'll decide I really should have had it.

We're considering a drive down to the Everglades for an air boat ride and hope to find some gators. Since I have no idea how close or far away they would be, I'm thinking once again that some sort of zoom would be best.

 

[KCmike]

Hope you get it figured out before your trip! Are you thinking Rent Glass in KC? Have you ever used them before? I have twice now and both times have been superb.

 

[bob100]

And that's a very valid point. I just don't know if 280 is worth it. For that matter, I'm not sure if 300 is worth it either.

Of course it doesn't help that the last few times we got to visit Ding Darling, we didn't find much to shoot. Hopefully we'll do better this time. I am fairly certain if I pass on renting something to get me more reach I'll decide I really should have had it.
We're considering a drive down to the Everglades for an air boat ride and hope to find some gators. Since I have no idea how close or far away they would be, I'm thinking once again that some sort of zoom would be best.

you're going to want longer for most wildlife. maybe rent one of the Tamron / sigma 150-600 zooms or 100-400 V2

I use the original 100-400 for wildlife and sports, the original is still good even though the newer V2 version is out (and the original is much cheaper used!)



60D
Canon 100-400 (original)

400mm
f5.6

 

[havoc315]

And that's a very valid point. I just don't know if 280 is worth it. For that matter, I'm not sure if 300 is worth it either.

Of course it doesn't help that the last few times we got to visit Ding Darling, we didn't find much to shoot. Hopefully we'll do better this time. I am fairly certain if I pass on renting something to get me more reach I'll decide I really should have had it.

We're considering a drive down to the Everglades for an air boat ride and hope to find some gators. Since I have no idea how close or far away they would be, I'm thinking once again that some sort of zoom would be best.

I suspect your 70-200 would be long enough for gators... You may need to crop a bit.

If stuck with a long prime instead of a zoom, sometimes it forces you simply to take a different perspective. Can't zoom out to get the whole gator when close, for example, but may get a very interesting detailed shot of his snappers.
When I'm shooting with a long prime, I also typically have the rx100 along, just in case I totally have to shoot a wide pic quickly (usually a couple family shots).

Try a little experiment... Spend a day with 70-200, but shoot at 200mm the entire day. If you enjoy the experience, you may enjoy 300/400 prime shooting. If you find it horribly frustrating, then you need a zoom.

 

[mom2rtk]

you're going to want longer for most wildlife. maybe rent one of the Tamron / sigma 150-600 zooms or 100-400 V2

I use the original 100-400 for wildlife and sports, the original is still good even though the newer V2 version is out (and the original is much cheaper used!)



60D
Canon 100-400 (original)

400mm
f5.6

Those are absolutely stunning, Bob!

You actually got me to go check out the specs on that lens. If we had experienced better luck at Ding Darling our last few trips, I'd probably be all over it.

I also considered digging out my T2i and taking it for the crop advantage. Crop + extender might be enough to get fairly close to my parasailers.

But as I think more and more, I'm leaning toward the lazy approach of keeping my carry-on bag as light as possible. If we were driving, I would probably be adding the 100-400 for some fun.

I think I'm down to 3 choices:

1) Just go with what I have and make the best of it.

2) Rent an extender and take that and my 70-200 f/4.

3) Rent the 70-300L and leave the 70-200 at home.

 

[mom2rtk]

I suspect your 70-200 would be long enough for gators... You may need to crop a bit.

If stuck with a long prime instead of a zoom, sometimes it forces you simply to take a different perspective. Can't zoom out to get the whole gator when close, for example, but may get a very interesting detailed shot of his snappers.
When I'm shooting with a long prime, I also typically have the rx100 along, just in case I totally have to shoot a wide pic quickly (usually a couple family shots).

Try a little experiment... Spend a day with 70-200, but shoot at 200mm the entire day. If you enjoy the experience, you may enjoy 300/400 prime shooting. If you find it horribly frustrating, then you need a zoom.

I think that's a great suggestion. If I get a bit of time before we go I'll try that.

Even if I don't go with a prime for this trip, I might decide to rent one during volleyball season in the fall for a little fun.

 

[mom2rtk]

Hope you get it figured out before your trip! Are you thinking Rent Glass in KC? Have you ever used them before? I have twice now and both times have been superb.

Hey Mike! Yes, I would be renting from Rent Glass here in town. I rented the 70-200 F/2.8L IS for each of the boys' high school graduations. They were great to work with. I opted to just use my f/4 zoom this weekend to shoot Robbie's college graduation at Municipal Auditorium. With the higher ISO capability of the 6D, I was happy with the f/4.

IMG_2500 by mom2rtk, on Flickr

IMG_2511-2 by mom2rtk, on Flickr

IMG_2537 by mom2rtk, on Flickr

 

[SkaGoat]

If you get a nice day, the Rebel should do a great job! but if it's a dreary overcast day, you might have to pump the ISO to keep your shutter speed up.