Canon 100-400 IS or 70-200 f2.8 IS with x2?

[Reptile Bob]

Hello,

I'm looking at getting one lens that essentially does it all for the best quality and value. I figure it would be best to get one good range L lens, then buying lots of other cheaper lenses. So I'm looking at getting the 100-400 IS or the 70 - 200 IS f2.8 and slapping a 2x extender on it. I'm leaning towards the 2.8; that way I can have the bright lens for indoor use, and a good zoom with nice IQ for wildlife.

But is it worth the extra 300-400 to go this route? I hear the image quality is better, but is it noticeable and worth the cost? Plus it looks like there are more 70-200's on the used market.

Thanks,
Robert

PS, I was also looking at the 80-400 OS Sigma. Any additional comments on that one?

[coreypolis]

the 100-400 will perform better than the 70-200 + 2x, but the 70-200 is unprecidented at the 70-200 range. a 1.4x is ok, but not great with a 2x.

so I guess it depends on how often you'd be at the long end of the 100-400

The sigma is trash, atleast compared to the others. the sigma 100-300 f/4 or even the 120-300 f/2.8 might be worth looking at, but a bit pricey

[Tee Why]

There is no one lens that does it all. Trying to find such a lens will surely end in frustration.

If you need speed and shoot at closer range and under low light and occassionally need the reach, the 70-200 with a TC is the way to go.

If you mainly shoot long, e.g. wildlife/birds, then a dedicated supertelephto zoom would be a better way to go than a telephoto zoom with a TC.

If you are concerned about optics, look at photozone.de.
You may also want to consider the
Sigma 70-200 f2.8
Sigma 50-500
Tamron 200-500
Upcoming Sigma 50-150 f2.8
sigma 120-300 f2.8

Good luck

[grego]

Sigma 120-300 if you want to reach closer. More of a monopod/tripod lens though.

70-200 will kick 100-400's ass till 200mm, then 100-400 wins. 70-200 with 1.4 TC ain't bad though.

[Reptile Bob]

Thanks everyone for the advice. :D I'm leaning towards the 70-200, but that price difference is a killer. If I did get an extension for it, would it be best to get the 1.4 and crop the pic if I want to be closer, or use a 2x?
Is there anywhere online with comparison shots with the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 2x?

Thanks again,
Robert

[red hot sheep]

Yes, this should help:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

Francis

[Lord_Malone]

I wish Canon would just revamp the 100-400. I'm not crazy about the push-pull zoom thing (I had an FD mount Vivitar lens that did that) and would like to see the range go from 200-400. Hell, up to 500 if they can manage to keep it roughly the size of the Bigma, which isn't so bad. An EF 200-500L IS. Wow.

[cc10d]

Yeh!! What he said..

[ACDCROCKS]

the 70-200mm Can make a 2.8 into a f/5.6, with the 100-400mm, your stuck with them aperatures. the 70-200mm is more versitle, basically, "More bang for the Buck".

[grego]

the 70-200mm Can make a 2.8 into a f/5.6, with the 100-400mm, your stuck with them aperatures. the 70-200mm is more versitle, basically, "More bang for the Buck".

But you lose AF speed and the image degredation sets in. So you actually need to stop down to get the best out of the lens. So you really aren't getting more bang for your buck if the 2xtc is always going to be stuck on it.

[ACDCROCKS]

But you lose AF speed and the image degredation sets in. So you actually need to stop down to get the best out of the lens. So you really aren't getting more bang for your buck if the 2xtc is always going to be stuck on it.
thats when you buy the 400mm /f2.8 IS:p, lol, yes you will loose speed, but how fast is a f/5.6 lens anway?

[grego]

thats when you buy the 400mm /f2.8 IS:p, lol, yes you will loose speed, but how fast is a f/5.6 lens anway?

It all depends what you shoot and can afford. If everyone could afford the 400 2.8, then more ppl would have it. The 400 alone is worth 2/3(probably more like 3/4) of my gear.