400 f2.8 or 100-400 What would you do?

[Brian_Cook]

Ok, I want to thank you all for helping me make my decision. I'm going with the Canon 100-400, Sigma 15-30mm, Canon 50mm f1.4, 100 mm macro, some extra batteries, filters, and maybe another camera bag. Oh yea, and a canon 550ex flash.

Anybody want to write that check for me? LOL

really, thanks for all the input, much appreciated.

www.pbase.com/bclee123

Brian

[BWBrock]

[ QUOTE ]
I have just enough money to buy a used Canon 400mm f2.8 non IS lens, or do I purchase a Canon 17-40, 50mm f1.4, a 100mm 2.8 macro, Canon 100-400 f4-5.6, and a flash and some extra batteries.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a limited budget...do you have a limited selection of subjects that you plan to shoot? If you have to shoot lots of football or soccer in all kinds of lighting, then the 400/f2.8 will reward you with breathtaking images. Can you sacrifice the flexibility for other kinds of shooting? The 400/f2.8 is a horrible walk-around lens...trust me on this one [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img].

I use a 200/f1.8 with converters (sorry Noel; I feel your pain [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]), a 400/f2.8 and a 100-400IS for 90% of my sports needs. As great as the 400/f2.8 is as a lens, it is a major pain in the caboose to drag it around and you DO need to use a good monopod with this beast. I only use the 400/f2.8 if I plan on parking my butt in the endzone for a good portion of a footbal or soccer game. I actually prefer the 100-400IS for any day games I have to shoot and have no regrets. My sample of the 100-400 is superb on the 10D (the 1Ds shows poor corner quality) and I've had a few newspaper cover photos from it as well as some outstanding 16x20 prints.

My recommendation would be to skip over the 400/f2.8 at this point and go the well-balanced route you mentioned. FYI, Some previous comments mention the Series-I and Series-II versions of this lens. The Series-I version, I've heard, is short on repair parts, slower and a bit less sharp/contrasty so I'd avoid it. A Series-II has a "II" engraved on the fancy Canon label plate on the lens. Given the price, I'll bet you are looking at a Series-I. Good luck to you.

[BWBrock]

Ooops...LOL....you decided before I pressed ENTER. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Brian,
Base your decision on your shooting needs. The 400 will limit you to a fixed telephoto that can only zoom with manual assistance (legs). If you're shooting sports or wildlife in low light areas where you can't use a flash and this is what you plan to do most of your shooting with, then a 400 may work for you. It's a really heavy lens and you'll get a good workout hauling it and you're beefy tripod around.
The other kit you mentioned covers pretty much from one end to the other for general shooting. I went this way and once I settled into a more consistent need, I got the 200mm f1.8 for my sports and outdoor portrait shooting. I rarely use anything else now and having the 1.8 makes the difference when shooting indoors under really poor lighting.
Shooting fast action in low light is different from shooting still or walking action in the same light. A 1/125th shutter speed will work for a static shot but won't for even a medium paced action shot. When you're getting 1/250th shutter speeds at 3200ISO and f1.8, you can imagine the lighting conditions wouldn't be suitable for a 2.8 if shooting action.
Regards,
VG [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
PS...DUH! I only saw the first page of threads so I guess I blew it...hehe