Canon EOS 450d or 40d and 70-200 2.8 or 100-400 4.5-5.6

perrie · Post by **perrie** » 16 Oct 2008, 12:18

I'm about to buy a new digital camera and lens. I'm using a canon 350d and 75-300 (4.5-5.6) lens.
Even with good light I have the feeling that many pictures are not 100% 'sharp'. I meen: you can see those pictures on the messageboard a lot. Nice pics but not completely sharp.

Now I'm thinking of the Canon 450d or the 40d. Last tuesday at Florennes someone told me that although the Canon 40d has less pixels than the 450d it makes better pictures because it's more 'professional'. In other words, the diffenence in price has to be somewhere...

For a lens I am considering the Canon 700-200 (2.

IS USM (with teleconverter x1.4 or x2)
and the Canon 100-400 (4.5-5.6) IS USM

Choosing the 700-200 might be better because with converter you still have a 400mm 5.6. I'm I right?

Hope someone can give some advise on body and lens.
Thanks,

Per

perrie · Post by **perrie** » 16 Oct 2008, 12:19

oops,

Ofcourse that has to be the canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM lens.
Something went wrong there.

per

Thijs · Post by **Thijs** » 16 Oct 2008, 12:27

There are already some topics about the 100-400L and the 70-200 2.8. So a little search at this MB would answer some of the questions you have

perrie · Post by **perrie** » 16 Oct 2008, 12:31

Thanks Thijs,

Now about the body's 450d and 40d.

Look on the mb.
thanks.
Per

Maurice · Post by **Maurice** » 16 Oct 2008, 12:33

Per,

As fo the body I would certainly recommend the 40D. Not that it is so 'professional' but I think it is more user friendly and better build. I use one myself, next to a 1Dmk2, and I am very very pleased with it. Fast AF, huge buffer easy to handle and 10MP is more than you will possibly need (1m wide print is no problem these days).

When it comes to the lenses. I work with the 70-200/2.8 and I am very pleased with that one. You can certainly use it without loss of quality with a 1.4x extender. I will not recommend the use of 2x extender. Your pics will lack sharpness and might not meet your standards. I don't have experience with the 100-400 one. I hear various comments about that one going from 'never again!' all the way to 'the best lens I've had'... A complaint heard a lot is softness at the 400 end. A friend of mine bought one recently and his pictures seem to be ok at full 400mm so maybe Canon fixed this problem.

You can find good reviews at the below link:

http://www.dpreview.com

Good luck!

Redskin301 · Post by **Redskin301** » 16 Oct 2008, 12:42

I do use the 100-400 Maurice, and i'm in the middle between "never again"and "toppie" it is flexible but quality can be much better @ 400mm

Maurice · Post by **Maurice** » 16 Oct 2008, 12:50

Forgot to mention that the 40D body is really cheap these days with the new 50D on the scene.

My shop recommendation failed to pass the Scramble censorship. So I am only allowed to mention that the camera is currently cheap at several stores...

mazzel · Post by **mazzel** » 16 Oct 2008, 13:04

Wow, 9 maanden geleden nog 980 voor betaald...!

perrie · Post by **perrie** » 16 Oct 2008, 20:00

A friend mailed me that the Canon 70-200 4.0 IS USM is a fine lens too and cheaper than the 2.8
Anyone using this 4.0 lens and having good experiences?

Per

warthog64 · Post by **warthog64** » 17 Oct 2008, 00:44

perrie wrote:A friend mailed me that the Canon 70-200 4.0 IS USM is a fine lens too and cheaper than the 2.8
Anyone using this 4.0 lens and having good experiences?

Per

I have used the 4.0 lens for a year now, and am very pleased with the lens...!!

Jetzone 2000 · Post by **Jetzone 2000** » 17 Oct 2008, 13:53

Redskin301 wrote:I do use the 100-400 Maurice, and i'm in the middle between "never again"and "toppie" it is flexible but quality can be much better @ 400mm

After 2 times "never again", it is now "toppie" for me. Here is the topic I started over a year ago: http://www.scramble.nl/forum/viewtopic. ... mm&start=0

The one I have now is just slightly softer than a 300mm f4 IS both at wide open. No difference at f8.0 and even slightly sharper than the 300mm+1.4x combi (tested side by side on stationary and moving objects). I must admit that I'n mot a big fan of the push-pull design.

So be aware that this is one of the most discussed lenses regarding quality issues. "Soms zit het mee, soms zit het tegen"

About the 2x extenders; I have never heard good reviews on this one. (1.4x is far better)

nilsko · Post by **nilsko** » 17 Oct 2008, 14:12

perrie wrote:A friend mailed me that the Canon 70-200 4.0 IS USM is a fine lens too and cheaper than the 2.8
Anyone using this 4.0 lens and having good experiences?

Per

Great lens! Definately a good alternative for the 2.8 version

bramos · Post by **bramos** » 17 Oct 2008, 17:22

I'm also a proud owner of the 700-200 F4 (non-IS) L USM and I love it. I wouldn't opt for the 100-400 or 70-200 F2.8 because of their weight. And a 2.0x converter makes your image quality pretty poor. I'm saving money now to buy a 1.4x sometime, and than I'll have a great combination (for spotting, that is).

If you have the choice of 450D or 40D, I'd defenitively but the 40D. It's just a level up in the range, so that can't be a bad choice.

Leeuwarden · Post by **Leeuwarden** » 17 Oct 2008, 19:55

perrie wrote:A friend mailed me that the Canon 70-200 4.0 IS USM is a fine lens too and cheaper than the 2.8
Anyone using this 4.0 lens and having good experiences?

Per

I also have one. It is supposed to be sharper than the 2.8 version.

Purple · Post by **Purple** » 17 Oct 2008, 22:42

perrie wrote:A friend mailed me that the Canon 70-200 4.0 IS USM is a fine lens too and cheaper than the 2.8
Anyone using this 4.0 lens and having good experiences?

Per

I made these with the 70-200 1:4 non IS...
http://www.scramble.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45977

Grtz

Scramble Messageboard