100-400 IS, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 IS DO ?

[E-Man]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

if budget is tight, get 35F2.0 or 50F1.8 earlier and trade them in for 35F1.4 later: as it is now, you do not have anything faster (or 'thinner', DoF wise) than F4.0 ...

Hi Max,

I already have the 50F1.8, its a pretty decent lens, but its field of view is a little "narrow" on my 40D for indoor use. Strangely, it was my first lens (I think it came with my Rebel kit in the late 80s or early 1990s) and I hardly ever used it. Its been seeing fairly frequent use since getting my DSLR, though. The 35F1.4 will provide a wider angle of coverage and provide a little extra light to do some more creative work with the kids.

Eric

edit: I've uploaded an avatar with some thin DoF for you; my daughter with the 50mm at F2.2

[richardpcrowe]

Originally Posted by aam1234

A question from me.

It seems people, including me, swear by the 70-200 (in any of its variation), but do people actually use that lens/range. I'm asking because I have the f4 non-IS and only used it like 5 times since I bought it, and it was the first lens I bought.

Just wondering.

I carry it with me and use it all of the time. The IS really helps in lower light levels. I never considered the non-IS version as a good all-around lens due to the need for a higher shutter speed for hand holding - hence the need for brighter light. I can hand hold the IS model fully extended as slow as 1/30 second at f/4 with very good results and at 1/60 second at f/4 with almost 100% sharpness. Using ISO 400, that means a pretty low light level.

I use this lens as a companion to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and they are a great pair for travel and general walk-around work.

However, I probably get more use out of this lens because I generally shoot with at least two bodies. It is a lot easier just to switch cameras inthe field than to switch lenses on one camera.