100-400L or 70-200L f2.8 +2x extender
- Thread starter 9designs2
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 2,323
- Location
- On the stool at the end of the bar
I use a 7d with 100-400 for airshows and it's not a bad setup. I also have a 70-200 f/4 but thats not really used too much apart from static ground shots or when i'm really close to the action.
Even with the crop body though i would really prefer a 500mm prime for airshows. But, all i shoot really is aviation so eventually i will get one!
From what i have heard (have no experience myself on this) the AF speed is majorly hit when using a TC on the 70-200 as well.
Even with the crop body though i would really prefer a 500mm prime for airshows. But, all i shoot really is aviation so eventually i will get one!
From what i have heard (have no experience myself on this) the AF speed is majorly hit when using a TC on the 70-200 as well.
I have a set of Kenko tubes that work well with my Canon 100f2.8. I use thee to increase macro from 1:1.
As the 1.4 dgx pro has a glass element, the limit would be the quality of the glass Kenko use
A review can be read here
Code:
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/camera-lenses/kenko-teleplus-pro-300-af-dgx-1-4x-1030858/reviewand here
Code:
http://www.steveoakley.net/template_permalink.asp?id=263As it's half the price of the Canon it would be something I would be looking at if I didn't already have the Canon 1.4
I'm going to severely miss the 7D this year! I only go to 3 airshows a year though so I'll have to console myself with getting shots when I can and actually enjoying watching the aircraft once they're out of range. Or I might just rent a long prime!
I thought that Canon were bringing out a new telephoto lens with built in teleconverter? I seem to remember there were pics on the internet of the new MKIII and a lens that were being tested at a safari. Not sure if this is something that might be worth researching?
Edit... Look here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=46618
Edit... Look here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=46618
The AF will be slower with the 2x on a 70-200. Seeing as some people are using the mkII over the 300mm f4 with 1.4x and 100-400 lenses, I just had to give it a go. I'm selling my mkI IS and 150-500 to fund it. I'm going to try the Kenko or Sigma TC's first, just need to source some!
Here's why I've gone the 70-200 mkII route.
Here's why you probably shouldn't with a mkI 70-200.
Here's why I've gone the 70-200 mkII route.
Here's why you probably shouldn't with a mkI 70-200.
Expected to be around 8k though!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...m-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx
Both the new Canon and Nikon 70-200 are much improved with TCs but the Canon with a 2xTC wide open is not as sharp as the 100-400 wide open a 400mm.
So it is stll the case that if you need the 300-400mm range sufficiently often then the dedicated lens provides better sharpness.
Look at the 400mm f/5.6 vs the 70-200 IS MKII:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2
I wish Nikon made a modern 400mm f/5.6 . They did release a patent so maybe one is coming.
Expected to be around 8k though!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...m-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx
The Nikon 200-400mm f/4.0 (which has existed since the 1980s in various forms) sets you back 4.7k, + 300 for the TC. Yet some how Nikon lenses are more expensive than Canon.....
Only when pixel peeping and the 100-400 advantage is there but not enough to make a difference for me. I'll use the 70-200 95% of the time without a TC, for the other 5% the performance looks to be more than adequate.
Long primes would be nice, but the flexibility of a zoom at an airshow and motorsports is paramount for me. AF speed of the 400 f5.6 is way faster though.
As I said, if you need the 300-400 range frequently then a lens of that focal length without TCs would be a better purchase, but since you want to use the 70-200 without a TC most of the time then it is obviously the better option.
Buying a lens with the intention if using a TC frequently, unless we are talking exotic primes with a 1.4x TC, is not really a great investment.
Buying a lens with the intention if using a TC frequently, unless we are talking exotic primes with a 1.4x TC, is not really a great investment.
Actually I'll be using it a lot with a 1.4x TC, IQ and AF impact is negligible. That would be in relation to number of shots taken as I get through a lot over a weekend event.
edit: I guess even though I'll probably only do 4 airshows this year the number of shots would be pretty high! I'm more concerned over the lack of reach over performance at the moment though to be honest.
Last edited:
It is always a double edged sword trying to get more reach by using TCs that then impact your effective resolution such that you are not really gaining anymore than simply cropping the image and potentially upscaling.
Getting sufficient reach is a real pain and there is no magic solution, except trying to get closer to the subject (which is not always possible).
I was thinking of updating my 70-200VR1 to the newer version so it handles TCs better but i am no so sure. I may bet better seed simply saving up and buying a 500mm f/4.0 VR selling and replin gthe 70-700 with a couple of primes.
Getting sufficient reach is a real pain and there is no magic solution, except trying to get closer to the subject (which is not always possible).
I was thinking of updating my 70-200VR1 to the newer version so it handles TCs better but i am no so sure. I may bet better seed simply saving up and buying a 500mm f/4.0 VR selling and replin gthe 70-700 with a couple of primes.
Last edited:
Have you consider the 28-300L. Some say it attracts dust owing to the push/pull operation, but it has good range and is quite compact. Would also give you over 400 with the 1.4.
They are over £2k new, but there is one here for £1499, and it will have a warranty I would imagine, albeit only for 30 days, but still plenty of time to know if it is a good copy.
They are over £2k new, but there is one here for £1499, and it will have a warranty I would imagine, albeit only for 30 days, but still plenty of time to know if it is a good copy.
Code:
http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/used/Canon-CANON-28-300mm_43445.htmlIf I did more wildlife I would definitely go the prime route. Cars, aircraft and rugby players don't quite need the finesse that feathers and fur do
I have the 100-400 and also had a 70-200. It does depend on what you use them for but I eventually sold the 70-200 as it always seemed to be in the middle of what I really wanted.
I use it mainly for aviation and the 100-400 is flexible enough for ground taxi shots and good air shots but the 70-200 was generally too short for air and at airshows not wide enough for static. I ended up with the 17-40 for my general lens.
The 100-400 has been a great investment and I have never found it problematic being hand held and never use it on a tripod.
I use it mainly for aviation and the 100-400 is flexible enough for ground taxi shots and good air shots but the 70-200 was generally too short for air and at airshows not wide enough for static. I ended up with the 17-40 for my general lens.
The 100-400 has been a great investment and I have never found it problematic being hand held and never use it on a tripod.
I personally think buying second hand, then selling second hand is better value than hiring.
I currently have the Canon 100-400 and the 70-200 F4L IS... I use both for very different shots. I just wish I had more of an opportunity to use my 100-400 as it was so nice to use. Generally I choose the portability option so the 70-200 tends to stay in my bag.
I currently have the Canon 100-400 and the 70-200 F4L IS... I use both for very different shots. I just wish I had more of an opportunity to use my 100-400 as it was so nice to use. Generally I choose the portability option so the 70-200 tends to stay in my bag.
I've used Lenses for Hire a few times and the service is top quality. If you contact them, they will advise you of which lenses would suit your aim better too.
It may well be cheaper to find a local place to save on delivery (LfH estimate around £28 total delivery costs for big lenses)
Going off that ISO chart, the TC combo quickly loses out mid frame progressively getting worse as you move out. Added to the loss of AF speed/tracking ability, seems an odd decision to me but if it works for you...
Brilliant lens otherwise, the benchmark for the 200-400 if it ever makes production.
Brilliant lens otherwise, the benchmark for the 200-400 if it ever makes production.