Airliners.net

Guys I am considering the purchase of one of the above two lenses for Aviation and Wildlife Photography and wondered if any of you have either of these lenses and would like to offer advice? I currently have a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L IS Lens and find I am just that little bit to far away and would like a bit more flexibility and quality for aviation photography. George

If you think 300 will be enough, I'd say save some money and go with a 1.4 convertor for your 70-200. I think the image quality will be as good, if not better, that either of these lenses. Your AF will slow down a little compared to the lens without the convertor, but then neither the 100-400 or 28-300 are noted for fast AF.

If you want the wide angle benefit of the 28-300, then use the money you save to get (for example) a 24-105 or 17-40.

I you NEED 400mm, then you don't have much choice. I wouldn't rely on the 2x convertor on the 70-200

Cheers,

Colin

The trouble with the 28-300 is that it's going from wide-angle to super-telephoto, and although being an L it's better than the alternatives such lenses try and be a 'jack of all trades' but are unfortunately master of none. They are generally for those who can only transport a single lens and need to be most flexible. Like Colin I'd suggest a twin-lens arrangement, such as the 24-70L and 70-300L, or 24-105L and 100-400L. Or even a nice 300/400mm prime for the long range.

Karl

Guys thanks for that I have had real issues using a 2x convertor with the 70-200 and not getting the images sharp enough for publication. I think to be honest it is a little bit of my skills and my cameras causing the issues - getting images sharp using the Canon EOS 1D Mark IIn and the Canon EOS ID Mark III has never been easy despite the large outlay to purchase same. Thinking about buying the 7D and possibly the Sigma 150-500 as possible alternatives? Comments?
George