:iagree: with everything said. Just wanted to mention that the 2.8 is why the len typically shoot a cleaner and crisp picture. You could add a 2x adapter or doubler to increase your zoom to 140-400mm. You will loss a little sharpness but it will give you more versatilely rather then having another large lens. I have a pentax 35mm setup with a doubler and get great shots when I go the NASCAR and IRL races at Daytona and Homestead. These 2 shots where about 200 ft away with a doubler:goodluck:

Excellent point! Dave. I forgot to mention that. A 1.4x or 2x adaptor will work just fine with autofocus on the f2.8 but not the f4 or f5.6 lenses. Also the slight loss of quality will be not as much as the loss going from the f2.8 to the cheaper f4 or f5.6 70-300 lenses. I have personally used the 1.4 extender with my Nikon 70-200 to make saleable images that would not have been possible with an older 70-300 (yes I had one) zoom.

Canonmick,

If you gotta have the best, any lens from the Canon 'L' series is fine. Incidentally, Canon teleconverters only work with the 'L' teles. CHECK compatibility before you buy.

Weng

re using a tripod for outdoor shots, what would be the best model/brand for trekking about?

I can't tell the best brand but I have a light weight vivatar tripod that works great. it comes with a couple of mount clips that attaches to your camera and one to your other camera or video camera or binoculars for quick change. I have carried mine for years with no problem. I think I paid less then $30.00 new

The best brand is Gitzo. Check out their carbon fibre/magnesium range for outdoor use. If money is no object, then look at the Gitzo Titanium - although it really isn't man enough for real SLR work. Would have been fine in the old Leica days.
Weng

Hi, Mick I just wanted to say that you don't need the most expensive equipment to take GREAT pictures. Some of my best pictures were taken with a pentax k1000 all manual with a 35 mm lens.Its more about learning what your camera setup is capable of. Your not going to get the sweat running down the nose of a football player from the stands with out a good lens but in the same token your not going to get good portrait shots with a large lens. It's all about what type of pictures your trying to take. Lens are only one aspect of photography, lighting,Fstop, aperture plays as much if not more then the quality of the lens. I guess what I am saying is to look at the big picture not just one part.:goodluck: And don't forget to post some pictures ;)

My 2 cents worth, lol. At least I can offer some relevant advice here unlike the orchids.

Before buying a new specific lens, figure out what you want to dtake pixs of with the lens most of the time.

Make a list of the kind of photos you would like to take with your current gear and what it is about your current lens that is the "limiting" factor?

Once you answered the above you will have a better idea and what you will give you the best bang for your hard earned cash.

Questions like...
Are you a low light indoor or night time sports fan
or
outdoor sunny afternoon weekend with kids parent
or
avid bird watcher
or
Macro shooter
or
budding paparazzi

Is the sweet spot for you a large aperture or reach? ie Now with your current lens setup think about how you use your current lens. Are you always at the telephoto end or at the largest aperture or both?

Over the years I had many photography students ask and I always asked then the above questions and surprisingly the lens they bought was different 50% of the time.

Also remember that lenses designed for "full frame" cameras on an APS sized sensor camera are only using the centre sweet spot so the quality difference is marginal.

My thoughts for the best all rounder is EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM plus a decent tripod and a monopod unless you really need that speed.

Oh and don't forget the sigma EX range...especially if you can test it on your camera.

filters
 

Granted that the fastest lenses with the best optics will give the best image, what about the question of UV haze filters for lens protection? Plain, non-uv haze ground glass filters have been suggested, but I've not had much luck finding them for sale. Any suggestions?
Canonmick

Any photographic shop should sell both UV filters and Skylight 1A filters. Haze filters may be a little more difficult to locate, but Tiffen do make them.

All three types will stop UV with increasing strength (i.e. UV will look like plain glass while haze has a straw tint).

Photographic filters are ground flat, then polished. Ground glass refers to unpolished glass which are near opaque. Perhaps that is why you cannot find one. They don't sell them like that.

All three types of filters will protect the lens at the expense of flare and image degradation. This really defeats the point of buying an expensive lens in the first place. If I were worried about damage to expensive front elements, I'd buy a cheaper lens and still forget the filter.

In 40 years of very active photography, I have only damaged one front element, but destroyed two cameras and several lenses. So perhaps proper insurance is a better option.

Weng

PS. I often shoot into the light, and filters can ruin a good shot with flare, ghost images and reduced contrast.