I am a keen amateur photographer with a Canon 30D and am looking to buy a telephoto lens for our trip to Sabi Sabi and Madiwkwe in June (but buying NOW for Christmas). I want to do a photography course before we go.
I was looking at the Canon 70-300 basic model for $A468.
But our current 28-85 lens is NOT the basic model so I am thinking we should maybe go for the 70-300 L model at $A1498 (nearly 3 times the price). We can afford it if necessary...
Plus with the L series I could then get the 1.4 Canon extender which is only meant to lose 1 stop of aperture. for $A485.
Hmm, but maybe I should go all the way to the Canon 100-400 L model for $1821. Then would I not get the extender? Or would I get it anyway for even MORE zoom.
The 100-400 L weighs 1366g so will definitely need a monopod (and a beanbag).
Is the fact that it needs a monopod a reason to not get it? Would I be happier with the 100-300 and less weight (1015g for the L, 630g for the basic)? Or would the 300 need a monopod anyway?
I can't take 2 SLR cameras and I don't want to be changing lenses for scenery shots. So I am thinking of buying a superzoom or bridge camera. The Panasonic Lumix FZ200 ($A595) is equal to a 25-600mm zoom. Now I know the quality can't be as good as the SLR but its purpose is as a backup in case of SLR camera failure, plus an extra camera to share between the four of us, plus use for scenery shots. Any thoughts on this idea?
So at this stage I am leaning towards the 100-400L. Any thoughts out there?