New lens and/or tele converter for 500D

[tomthx]

Hi All,

Can you help me decide the best direction for what I'm after. I currently have a 18-55 (that came with the 500D) and a EF 28-80 USM and EF 80-200 USM, that I used with an older SLR and now use with the 500D. I used the 80-200 a few weeks ago at an airshow and was disappointed with the results when trying to photograph the aircraft in flight.

I would like to know whether I should invest in a Kenko 2X converter to used with the 80-200 or, purchase a EF 100-300 USM with the converter. Or, should I look at a new lens, I like the Sigma 50-500 or 120-500?

I understand that there is a big price difference between the len and tele converter combination v the Sigma's but I would like the opinions of those on the forum for the best direction and/or other options I should consider.

As for the photos I like to take, obviously aircraft (during demonstrations and static), storms/whether (especially lightning) and I am doing a big NSW-SA-WA-NT-NSW road trip next year and will be taking a lot of landscapes etc. So please let me know your thoughts.

Cheers,
Tom.

[Roosta]

Well there be some questions in that, I feel you would benifit from fast glass, especially for your airshow/planes. The longer telephoto the more dollars in a fast glass lens. There is a lot of great Genuine and Third Party lenses on the market at the monent, so trying to find an all in one probally wont be that easy. If I was you, firstly decide on main use, so you can figure its main focal range. Then look at whats available to you. The Canon 100-400mm L is a great lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) You go on to mention 100-300mm USM, not sure on which lens that is.

There was some debate regarding longer tele lens a while back, and the Sigma range of new lenses got some great write ups, the range your in has so many options, so I would be looking at its main use first, then lock in a price range that fits your budget and then narrow down your field.

The teleconvertor is a great cheap option, but do remember that you'll lose F stops and will probally loose speed and IQ at longer focal lengths F5.6 out to F8 and so on.

Example of this is, I use my 70-200mm F2.8 with 1.4 tele and it becomes 280mm focal max at F4, so you would want to bear that in mind and also note that not all lenses will take the teleconvertors from what i've read and heard.

The Canon 100-400 L would be a great all rounder on your trip, lanscape, tele, and will fit in with your exsisting shorter lenses.

P.S. What did you have the camera mode set at when using the 80-200, Manual or Auto modes ?? Focal range and ISO + Shutter speed will affect your images, add to that the speed of the lens you are using, is it going to achieve wehat you desire, Again, my first point, work on main use of the lens you want..

[Roosta]

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?70778-New-kit-big-lens-choice-(300-400mm) Here is a link to an earlier post regarding longer focal ranges, Daniel is looking into the Sigma's, you might be able to PM him and see what his thoughts are on the research he has done.

[Arg]

Have a look at your image files with the 80-200 and measure how much bigger you want the plane to be.
Multiply the result by 200mm and see if you get a silly number.

[dulvariprestige]

You will also lose AF on the lenses you've mentioned if you use a 2X TC.

Sigma's 150-500 is probably the best if you want long focal length for not a lot of money, I had a canon 100-400 for a couple of months, great IQ, 5.6 instead of 6.3 on the sigma, you get used to the push pull zoom, I actually got to like it, although it was twice the price of the sigma, but I sold that and bought a sigma 100-300 f4, 100mm shorter and no IS, but for me, that extra stop of light out of the sigma was worth it, if I want that 100mm back I can add a 1.4 TC and still have AF.

[tomthx]

Thanks for the information so far. I think I need to spend the weekend reviewing and maybe try to get out and test a few options.
Cheers,
Tom.