100-400L IS or 70-200 2.8 and convertor?

philio16

philio16

philio16

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
158
Location
Manchester, UK
Hey guys....

I currently have the 100-400 which I'm reasonably happy with, but have been shooting candid weddings shots with a wedding photographer for the past few months and the f4.5 at the 100mm end is limiting me to pushing up the ISO.

So, I have been thinking of maybe selling on the 100-400, and buying myself the 70-200 and either a 1.4 or 2x convertor. Aside from losing the IS which is useful at 400mm, would I lose out on IQ at all??

I shoot mainly wildlife so I do need the length, but doing more and more weddings is pushing me for a better f stop lens!

What do you think??
Cheers!
 
Concorde Rules said:
70-200 F/2.8 IS + 2x TC you don't loose AF or IS.

Im in the same boat :( dunno what to get.
Click to expand...

The IS version is a little out of my budget at the moment :(

I think if I sold my 100-400 I would have pretty much the right money for the non IS setup which would be perfect (aside from having to live without a lens for a couple of weeks...)

Perhaps I should save more for the IS version and 2x TC?? So many choices :(
 
I will never buy a long range zoom without IS now.

I want a 100-400 but I also want a 70-200.

Wish canon would make a 200-400 F4 IS :p

Then we have primes at 300mm F4 IS, 400mm F.5.6 non IS...

TBH if you are getting money from weddings? Get the 70-200 F2.8.
 
I'd say go for the 2.8 IS and then think about a 1.4tc later. The 1.4tc will bring you down to F4 though. The IS is great to have, especially at events coupled with the 2.8 means more keepers which has got to be the main thing for weddings.

I recently shot a christening for the gf friend, whilst i'm not really happy with many of the shots (both venues were dire for lighting and I didn't have freedom to move about much) the 2.8 allowed me to get some half decent shots which without the 2.8 and IS I possibly wouldn't have got.

If you intend to do it professionally then you really do need to hold out for the 2.8 IS IMO.
 
I wouldn't sell a lens such as the 100-400 as it covers such a good range, you'd be better off saving your pennies..
 
Concorde Rules said:
I saw that, it looks obv but I can see artifacting due to compression so I dont think its fair test TBH.
Click to expand...

Also an old generation extender was used!

I really don't know what to do, the f2.8 is very appealing especially for the indoors shots :confused: Saying that I have been using my 100-400 with the 580 flash and results are impressive...
 
You guys are clutching at straws !!!

1 – The files are 100% crops so noise is more visible.
2 – The only difference between the old and new extender is weather sealing.

My opinion for the prefect setup (within a budget) would be a 70-200 F4 IS and a 300mm F4 with 1.4x convertor. I have a 24-70L F2.8 and 100mm Macro F2.8 and very rarely use either at F2.8; I would rather use a higher ISO with noise reduction applied.
 
Having had the 100-400 and now having a 70-200f2.8IS... ive got to say i much prefer the 70-200f2.8IS...

IMO from example shots from the likes of SDK^'s 100-400 mine was a bad copy.

Similar to what SDK^ has said, for me 70-200f2.8IS, 300f2.8IS and a 1.4xTC is my current prefered setup... Unfortunately ive had to keep to a budget and havent bought anything longer yet, but the 500f4IS is the only other lens I can see myself adding to my collection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom