What should I buy

[Michael Hogan]

I have decided (I think) to sell my Nikon D80, 18-135mm f3.5, 300m f4 and Kenko 1.4x converter, and buy Canon gear. I think I'll go for the new 40D and (the main reason for switching) a 500mm f4 IS L. What else should I get. I would love the 300 f2.8 IS but I'm not made of money so I was thinking of the 300 f4 IS L. Is it a good lens. This would be my main walk around handheld birding lens. I also need a shorter wider zoom like the 18-135 Nikon. Should I go for the 40D + 17-85 kit or just the 40D body and the 24-105 f4 IS L or should I forget about the 300 f4 and go for the 28-300 f3.4 IS L. I will also get a 1.4x converter.

BTW - offers accepted for the Nikon kit, D80 1 year old, 300 F4 3 month old. All boxed and perfect.

Thanks

[Keith Reeder]

The 40D/500mm f/4 combo would be utterly bl**dy fantastic Michael - there's simply no question about that.

The Canon 300mm f/4 is a magic little lens - optically the equivalent of the Nikon (which is excellent, as you know) - but with the addition of IS.

There's the 400mm f/5.6 of course - light and sharp, but without IS, and with a longer minimum focusing distance - and then there's my favourite, the 100-400mm, which just does everything well and which is supremely versatile.

[postcardcv]

I recently got the 500 f4 - you'll love it, it's an outstanding lens.

Other lenses to buy really comes down to personal preference - I've twice come close to buying the 300 f4 IS and on both occassion gone for something else (first a 100-400 then a 400 f5.6). They are all good lenses but as I am mainly shooting birds I decided I wanted more reach and that I'd almost always use a 1.4x on the 300 f4 so went for the 400mm option instead. I've only just got the 400 f5.6 (last week), so far I really like it - very fast focusing, nice and sharp wide open. It's a well balanced lens and works very well as a walkabout, seems to take a 1.4x tc (with pins taped) quite well, which is a bonus.

As for the shorter lenses, I came close to buying a 24-105 IS earlier in the year, and probably should have done so. Instead I went for a 28-70 f2.8 as I wanted the f2.8 for portraits. It's also worth thinking about whether you want a macro or a super wide anlge... there's lots to spend your money on!

[citrinella]

I have decided (I think) to sell my Nikon D80, 18-135mm f3.5, 300m f4 and Kenko 1.4x converter, and buy Canon gear. I think I'll go for the new 40D and (the main reason for switching) a 500mm f4 IS L. What else should I get. I would love the 300 f2.8 IS but I'm not made of money so I was thinking of the 300 f4 IS L. Is it a good lens. This would be my main walk around handheld birding lens. I also need a shorter wider zoom like the 18-135 Nikon. Should I go for the 40D + 17-85 kit or just the 40D body and the 24-105 f4 IS L or should I forget about the 300 f4 and go for the 28-300 f3.4 IS L. I will also get a 1.4x converter.

BTW - offers accepted for the Nikon kit, D80 1 year old, 300 F4 3 month old. All boxed and perfect.

Thanks

Hi Michael,

I haven't found 28 wide enough, don't think 24 would be enough different. 17-85 and 100-400 sound a good combination. The 17-85 is quite slow and some folk are a bit underwhelmed by the quality. 17-55 f2.8 gets much better reviews in those respects but costs ...

Mike.

[hollis_f]

Hi Michael,

I haven't found 28 wide enough, don't think 24 would be enough different. 17-85 and 100-400 sound a good combination. The 17-85 is quite slow and some folk are a bit underwhelmed by the quality. 17-55 f2.8 gets much better reviews in those respects but costs ...

Mike.
If you want proper wide angle then the 10-22 is the canine's gonads. It fits in well with my lens collection - 10-22, 24-105, 100-400, 60mm f2.8 macro and 50mm f1.8.

[citrinella]

If you want proper wide angle then the 10-22 is the canine's gonads.
Yes, I use that to fill the gap below my 28-135. It is a superb lens. What I don't like is having to change lenses right in the middle of normal working range. It is expensive too, even 2nd hand. I think similar money gets you a 17-55 which as well as covering the standard range quite well offers f2.8. It has a similar "L without weathersealing" reputation to the 10-22.

17-85 is not the same quality as either, not the same speed as the 17-55, but it has a bit more range and is considerably cheaper - and loads of 2nd hand copies available.

I haven't highlighted IS (the 10-22 is the only one of these three that doesn't have it) as it is irrelevant. IS would have virtually zero benefit with such a short lens.

I already have two bodies so I don't have to take my bird lens off. I don't really want to carry 3. I reckon I am carrying too many lenses. Want to help OP avoid the same situation. After all, there is a "theory" that the number of photos you take is inversely related to the number of lenses you carry. I see sense in that :-)

Mike.