I just returned from my annual windsurf trip to Baja. This was my first trip with a canon DSLR (EOS 30D) using a 70-300 canon IS zoom with or without a tamron 2X doubler. The focal lengths 140-600 using the doubler were about right (most shots between 250 and 600, with 450-600 being the most common). I loved the camera, and I could get much better pics than with the point and shoot olympus I have been previously using.

The one problem I had is that the autofocus doesn't work with the tamron doubler (2X). When i returned from the trip, I investigated the canon 100-400 zoom, hoping that I could pair it with a 1.4X teleconverter. Apparently, this just exceeds the limits for auto focus to work.

So--I would really like a zoom with a 200-600 range, but I also really like autofocus. I do like image stabilization as well, but it may not be necesary as most of the windsurf pictures will be in bright sunlight. Small and light is also a big plus (a nice feature of the 70-300 mm lens) so I can go handheld.

Any recomendations about how to proceed would be appreciated.

Tough call. As you probably know, your body requires f5.6 to autofocus. Canon doesn't make a 300mm zoom that can be used with a 2x tele at f5.6 or better.

My solution is use a 400 fixed * 1.4 which gets me to 560.

I look forward to seeing other suggestions.

450-600 is quite long. Getting 450mm+ and fast (f/4 or faster) gets quite pricey. 400+, fast, small, and light just isn't going to happen.

The 30D requires f/5.6 to autofocus. As a 2xTC adds two stops, you need a 2.8 lens. Unless you want to carry around a king-kong 300/2.8 or 400/2.8, there are a few options:

The 70-200/2.8 is one of Canon's best all-around lenses. I have the IS version and it's one of my favorites. With a 1.4 or 2xTC, you can get out to 280/4 or 400/5.6.

The 100-400 is almost exactly the same size. As a 2xTC impacts image quality, I use this for long reach (280+) and the 70-200 for it's native range or with a 1.4xTC. (I don't even own a 2xTC due to the impact on quality.)

If you're shooting in bright light, the 100-400IS or a 400/5.6 prime sounds like the best bet.

The other option, which I haven't used, is the Sigmonster - Sigma 50-500/6.3. Very slow at the long end, needing lots of light. But it can make the body think it's f/5.6 so AF still works

The 100-400 f/4.0-5.6 L is a great lens. I had 75-300 and the 100-400 L glass is so much better--much,much sharper. You might be able to crop to get the same area of view as with an equivalent 600 with your 75-300 and the teleconverter and the same quality of picture or better.

It's a heavy lens, though. You just can't get light, cheap and good. In fact, it's hard to get light and good telephoto lenses.

If you buy the lens, you'll love it, with or without the extender. Unfortunately, once you start buying L lenses, you'll never go back. They are so much sharper.

I just returned from my annual windsurf trip to Baja. This was my first trip with a canon DSLR (EOS 30D) using a 70-300 canon IS zoom with or without a tamron 2X doubler. The focal lengths 140-600 using the doubler were about right (most shots between 250 and 600, with 450-600 being the most common). I loved the camera, and I could get much better pics than with the point and shoot olympus I have been previously using.

The one problem I had is that the autofocus doesn't work with the tamron doubler (2X). When i returned from the trip, I investigated the canon 100-400 zoom, hoping that I could pair it with a 1.4X teleconverter. Apparently, this just exceeds the limits for auto focus to work.

So--I would really like a zoom with a 200-600 range, but I also really like autofocus. I do like image stabilization as well, but it may not be necesary as most of the windsurf pictures will be in bright sunlight. Small and light is also a big plus (a nice feature of the 70-300 mm lens) so I can go handheld.

Any recomendations about how to proceed would be appreciated.

No 1.4 or 2X extender will work with the 30 D and the 70-300mm
f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens. Auto focus will only work around f5.6. The Canon 1.4X converter will not even fit that lens.

I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Lens and the 1.4 works perfectly.

To do what you want, you will need to shell out the bucks for the 2.8 zoom or a prime lens like EF 300 or 400 2.8

Dont forget, you are already getting a 1.3 or 1.6X (I forget which on the 30 D) boost do to the crop factor of the sensor.

My mistake on the Sigma "nomenclature";)

The 50-500/6.3 is the Bigma

The Sigmonster is the 300-800/5.6 - perfect for what you need, but $7K. If you're spending that much, I'd go for the 600/4L plus 1.4TC

And then there's Sigzilla - 200-500/2.8. A 2TC is included in the purchase price to give 1000mm and retained AF with f/5.6. But it's projected at $8-10K and 35lbs. :)
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/Sigma/sigma200500mm-big-001.jpg

I would second or third the recommendation for the 100-400mm f4.5/5.6L lens. I used it extensively for wildlife photography and it was fantastic. While there were a few times I wished I had a 600mm lens, overall it was a great lens that was really sharp and not as big as a 600.

My mistake on the Sigma "nomenclature";)

The 50-500/6.3 is the Bigma

The Sigmonster is the 300-800/5.6 - perfect for what you need, but $7K. If you're spending that much, I'd go for the 600/4L plus 1.4TC

And then there's Sigzilla - 200-500/2.8. A 2TC is included in the purchase price to give 1000mm and retained AF with f/5.6. But it's projected at $8-10K and 35lbs. :)
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/Sigma/sigma200500mm-big-001.jpg

interesting.
Wonder if a tripod would hold that, or it needs its own.

I would second or third the recommendation for the 100-400mm f4.5/5.6L lens. I used it extensively for wildlife photography and it was fantastic. While there were a few times I wished I had a 600mm lens, overall it was a great lens that was really sharp and not as big as a 600.


At one of the Cleveland Grand Prix races, one of the Sport's Illustrated photographers let me "Play" with his 600 and 1200 for a few hours while we were in one of the media photo areas of the track. The images were incredible, but the lenses were so heavy, that even with a mono-pod, they were extremely difficult to use.

BTW, the 1200L was (I don't know if still made) a special order lens that cost more than many cars at the time:)

At one of the Cleveland Grand Prix races, one of the Sport's Illustrated photographers let me "Play" with his 600 and 1200 for a few hours while we were in one of the media photo areas of the track. The images were incredible, but the lenses were so heavy, that even with a mono-pod, they were extremely difficult to use.

BTW, the 1200L was (I don't know if still made) a special order lens that cost more than many cars at the time:)

Those are useful points. The 100-400 is about $1000. The others are way more expensive and way heavier. I think that there is a lot to be said for the smaller, lighter and much less expensive 100-400. It loses some on magnification but it gives stunning pics in its range and is manageable in terms of weight and cost. I think it is a better overall tool than a cheap lens with more length and lighter than an expensive one. Overall a real sweet spot.

I think the Bigma is in the $1K range - those are the only affordable sub-megabuck 400mm+ (Sigma 50-500, Canon 400 and 100-400).

The 1200/5.6L was about $80K and rumor is there are about a dozen in the world - SI owns two. It was discontinued in 2005. A Wemberly gimbal-type tripod is practically required for a 1200, 600, Sigzilla.

Well, here's a different take - if you are only buying a lens for your once-a-year trip to Baja, why not consider just renting the exotic lens you want just for the trip? I don't know where you live, but this option should be available in most major cities.

If nothing else, trying out different lenses and/or lens/teleconverter combinations before you buy might help you with a decision, then you can decide if it is really worth shelling out the money for gear you might only use sporadically.

I think the Bigma is in the $1K range - those are the only affordable sub-megabuck 400mm+ (Sigma 50-500, Canon 400 and 100-400).

The 1200/5.6L was about $80K and rumor is there are about a dozen in the world - SI owns two. It was discontinued in 2005. A Wemberly gimbal-type tripod is practically required for a 1200, 600, Sigzilla.

I would go with the shorter L lens from Canon at a grand.

interesting.
Wonder if a tripod would hold that, or it needs its own.

At this point, you do not mount the lens on the camera.. but you mount the
camera on to the lens :)

Most large lens come with their own tripod mounts.