Quote:
Originally Posted by ddk632
Wow, lots of great insight on the long lens topic. The explanation regarding 3" glass makes sense. Problem is, I like Ed's response about having the versatility of a zoom (100-400) for anything but birds, which I don't shoot.
So I guess with a 100-400 and a 2x TC, you'd get the range of 200-800 with 2 mm focal length increments. Seems good to me.
It's hard to follow you guys with the huge lenses. I think I will follow the "start small" and see what goes from there... 
I got the Motorsport photography bug kicking in and want to shoot these events with my full frame 6D as the up close and personal detail should be awesome. Not as awesome as Dave's "biker" shot, but that lens is too much lens for me just getting into this.
I'm with Dave on the "more pixels on the subject" approach, as I usually dislike heavy cropping, being old school and all wanting to get my composition as I want it when I am shooting, not in post.
I initially inquired about the 400L, and now I am thinking a 100-400L might be the answer. I would still use my 24-105, the 40mm Pancake, or the TS-E 17 for the pits and detail shots.
I will go to another race in a few weekends, might rent the 100-400L and give it a whirl. |
Just remember that a 100-400 with a Canon 2x TC will not give you AF on the 6D. The Kenko 2x TC will allow AF at f4 (which will be f8), but not reliably above that.
You might want to consider spending a bit more and get the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Then when you add a Canon 2x TC you get to 400mm f5.6 with IS. I'm seriously considering selling my 70-300L and getting a 70-200 f2.8. It's a super sharp lens.
This is a 100% crop from the center of an image I just shot outside. This is my 70-300L using the Kenko 1.4x TC for 420mm f8. It AF'd fine. The one thing I've never liked about the 70-300L is the bokeh at extreme crops. You can see it's fidgety here. One reason I want to move to the 70-200 f2.8.
