# Help!



## littlepilotdude (Mar 10, 2013)

Which lens should I get? It will be used for aviation, portrait, a bit of sports and general purpose. Body is a 5D mark II.


----------



## rpt (Mar 10, 2013)

As usual, the "best" answer is "it depends" 

Anyway, on a more serious note, it depends on what percentage of shots are going to be needing you to add on the 2x. I have a question for you. Why the non IS 70-200?


----------



## littlepilotdude (Mar 10, 2013)

rpt said:
 

> As usual, the "best" answer is "it depends"
> 
> Anyway, on a more serious note, it depends on what percentage of shots are going to be needing you to add on the 2x. I have a question for you. Why the non IS 70-200?



Hi,

I'm only 16 and I can't quite justify spending $2400 on the lens. I will eventually buy the IS II, but right now, I just can't.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2013)

The problem is disparate uses. The 100-400 is better for aviation, the 70-200/2.8 is better for portrait, sports and general use. I voted 100-400 because you listed aviation first, and 'pilot' is in your name. The 100-400 is great for airshows. The 70-200/2.8 non-IS doesn't hold up well to the 2x TC (although the IS MkII does). But if by aviation you mean you go to an airshow or two a year, or if you'd prioritize the other uses above aviation, get the 70-200. 

Used 100-400s can be had for $1000 - you might go that route, and get an 85/1.8 for portraits and indoor sports...


----------



## rpt (Mar 10, 2013)

littlepilotdude said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, the "best" answer is "it depends"
> ...


That makes sense. I was not suggesting the IS II though.

And I think you got your answer


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Used 100-400s can be had for $1000 - you might go that route, and get an 85/1.8 for portraits and indoor sports...



this is probably your best bet given your budget


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 11, 2013)

If you can find a used 400 f/5.6 that is a good option as well. I just saw one in perfect condition on my local CL for $875. That would leave you with some money left over for a 85 f/1.8 or 50 1.4 for portraiture.

I will be shooting at the Reno Air Races this year with the home pylon flagger and he uses the 100-400. His primary complaint is how much dust and crud the bellows design pulls in due to the push/pull zoom and it has been slowly killing his 40D. He just bought the 400 f/5.6 I mentioned above, a 7D and a nice cover to keep the majority of the dust out. I feel a prime in the 300 or 400 range on a FF or crop body will serve you better then a 100-400 zoom.


----------



## nda (Mar 11, 2013)

I voted 100-400L but another good option is the 70-300L I use this for aviation wonderful lens, good on my 5d2 fantastic on my 1d4


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 11, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> If you can find a used 400 f/5.6 that is a good option as well. I just saw one in perfect condition on my local CL for $875. That would leave you with some money left over for a 85 f/1.8 or 50 1.4 for portraiture.
> 
> I will be shooting at the Reno Air Races this year with the home pylon flagger and he uses the 100-400. His primary complaint is how much dust and crud the bellows design pulls in due to the push/pull zoom and it has been slowly killing his 40D. He just bought the 400 f/5.6 I mentioned above, a 7D and a nice cover to keep the majority of the dust out. I feel a prime in the 300 or 400 range on a FF or crop body will serve you better then a 100-400 zoom.



I'd be concerned that using a long prime at an airshow would offer too little flexibility for framing, P
particularly takeoff and landing versus flight.

As for dust, I used a 100-400 with my 7D very frequently for over two years, not a speck of dust in the lens, and I never had to manually clean the sensor on the 7D (Unlike my 5DII, which seemed to need a blower or a brush every other month). I do keep a filter on the lens, not sure if that makes a difference.


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > If you can find a used 400 f/5.6 that is a good option as well. I just saw one in perfect condition on my local CL for $875. That would leave you with some money left over for a 85 f/1.8 or 50 1.4 for portraiture.
> ...



The dust issue I think is unique to the Nevada area~ Not sure if he uses a filter but I do know the push/pull has had be be cleaned and repaired by Canon once over the last two years. The particulate is quite fine and after a day of shooting you tend to find dust in places you would normally not find dust. 

While I agree framing could be an issue I don't think it will pop up. I feel either lens would work well but I just like the primes over zooms at that range. A few used ones on ebay for similar prices as the 100-400 and on a few on CL's around the US near major cities all in the $850-$1000 range. Honestly, either way you can't go wrong.


----------



## rpt (Mar 11, 2013)

I forgot to vote the last time so I did just now. 100-400L. It is a great lens for the price. I used it yesterday to take pictures at a water sports event. An engineering college in the city was hosting their 85th Regatta. I shot 400 pictures and about 95% of them with the 100-400L. Even the shots taken in the dark. I was amazed. I had carried my 24-105 but it hardly got used. The versatility of having a zoom for such events is fantastic. Like neuro says if your distance to subject changes significantly framing becomes hard. If you are interested, take a look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 11, 2013)

100-400L is a great aviation and ballooning lens...can't beat the versatility of the zoom and price when bought used. As Neuro said, get yourself a 85 f/1.8 with the money you save and you will have portraits covered.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 11, 2013)

Get the 100-400L. The native 100-400 focal length will be way better than the 70-200 non-IS. 

For what you intend to shoot, you won't find a better value for money lens than the 100-400L.


----------



## RGF (Mar 11, 2013)

littlepilotdude said:


> Which lens should I get? It will be used for aviation, portrait, a bit of sports and general purpose. Body is a 5D mark II.



For general purpose and portrait I would consider the 70-300L. May not be long enough for spots and aviation, and not fast (only F4 or so in wide area of the zoom) so that may hinder portraiture a bit.

I have had 2 100-400 and found the 2nd one to be a bit soft, the 1st was great [sorry I sold it]. Also I don't like the push-pull (personal preference). The 70-300L has the zoom and focus rings reversed from other lens (zoom closest to the body). Also the 70-300 is lighter which I find a plus

Either can be a great lens of you. 

Something else to consider is a 7D. That will get you an 1.6 crop which increase the effective focal length of a lens (hurts wide angles).


----------



## Krob78 (Mar 11, 2013)

I think you would be very dissapointed with the end results of the 70-200mm if it was without IS and you were trying to use the TC. 100-400mm is very strong, sounds like it would be a winner for you and your particular needs. I think once you mount it to your 5dII, you'll never look back... ;D


----------



## bseitz234 (Mar 11, 2013)

I dunno, I'm beginning to suspect I have a particularly sharp copy, but I just got a 2x extender II, and mounted on my 70-200 2.8/non-is, I'm pretty happy with the results wide open at 400mm. Autofocus is noticeably slower, and has to hunt a little more, but I didn't notice as much CA on high-contrast edges as I expected, and it's not as sharp as the bare lens, but at least in some quick shots of things all the way across the lab, it's absolutely satisfactory... no IS, but I imagine if you're shooting mostly airshows with the extender, that you'd have a fast enough shutter speed to render that irrelevant anyway.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 2, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> I dunno, I'm beginning to suspect I have a particularly sharp copy, but I just got a 2x extender II, and mounted on my 70-200 2.8/non-is, I'm pretty happy with the results wide open at 400mm. Autofocus is noticeably slower, and has to hunt a little more, but I didn't notice as much CA on high-contrast edges as I expected, and it's not as sharp as the bare lens, but at least in some quick shots of things all the way across the lab, it's absolutely satisfactory... no IS, but I imagine if you're shooting mostly airshows with the extender, that you'd have a fast enough shutter speed to render that irrelevant anyway.


Good info, thanks!


----------

