Another L series lense opinion question

[chris.bailey]

Having made the decision to get a decent zoom and with an impending holiday on the horizon I have decided to give the credit cards a further battering. My thinking so far goes as follows -

70-200 f4L would be ok but slow with a 1.4 or 2x extender

70-200 f2.8L would be fast up to 200 and not too bad with extenders

100-400 f4L would be slower up to 200 than the above and not much faster up to 400 with a 2x extender.

Now OK the 2 x extender is a bit cumbersome but having a fast 70-200 with a not much slower 140-400 is tempting and that combo is not that much more expensive that the 100-400. I think however that 100-400 would be a much more usable zoom when going out for long shots and the 70-200, though nice, does not go quite far enough for those sort of trips out.

Anyone else been through this thought process and if so with what conclusion.

[Canuck]

Chris,
Ok, if you use a 2x TC you loose 2 f-stops. Say you use the 70-200 w/ a 2x tc it becomes a 140-400 F5.6. and you can use AF if you like. You stick that on the 70-200 F4 or Canon 100-400 and I don't think the AF works anymore, not to mention it becomes unbearably slow, 2 stops worse than it is already. What I have is the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX lens and it is a 240-600 F5.6 w/ the 2x tc. I don't have the 2x tc yet, but it is in the cards, so to speak. I went thru the same sorta thinking and decided as you will know that photography is a lot of comprimises. I enjoy the heck out of it even if it weighs 5 3/4 lbs. If you're interested in pics w/ it, send me a msg thru the forum. It is a smashing lens!

The TC isn't all that big and not a real big deal from what I gather. I have yet to see one, though. This is the Canon 1.4x one dimensions: Dimensions: 2.7 x 1.1 in and 7 oz. I can't imagine the 2x one being much bigger! Here is the info on the Sigma EX 2x tc: Dimensions (Dia x Length) 68 x 45.3mm / 2.6 x 1.78in
Weight: 234g / 8.3oz.

Also, the footnote with this tc is: Most EOS Cameras require a lens maximum aperture of f/5.6 or larger (smaller number) for the AF system to work properly (EOS-3 can work with f/8 or larger) therefore, when converters are coupled with some large telephoto lenses, it may require the photographer to focus manually.

I can only hope this post sets you off in the right direction. Are you shooting w/ a 10D or 300D or what?

[Scottes]

One problem with the TCs is that you are also limited to the center focus point for AF on the 70-200 at least. So the 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x TC becomes a 140-400 f/5.6 with a single AF point.

The current 100-400 L is f/4.5-5.6. So with a TC you lose AF at any length. (Was there a 100-400 F4?? I can't find mention of it.)

The lens Canuck is talking about is $1900. That would be very nice...

My solution was the 70-200 f/2.8, a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, and a 1.4 TC. I lose AF on the 100-400, but it's still OK for manual focus.

[chris.bailey]

Chris,
Ok, if you use a 2x TC you loose 2 f-stops. Say you use the 70-200 w/ a 2x tc it becomes a 140-400 F5.6. and you can use AF if you like. You stick that on the 70-200 F4 or Canon 100-400 and I don't think the AF works anymore, not to mention it becomes unbearably slow, 2 stops worse than it is already. What I have is the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX lens and it is a 240-600 F5.6 w/ the 2x tc. I don't have the 2x tc yet, but it is in the cards, so to speak. I went thru the same sorta thinking and decided as you will know that photography is a lot of comprimises. I enjoy the heck out of it even if it weighs 5 3/4 lbs. If you're interested in pics w/ it, send me a msg thru the forum. It is a smashing lens!

The TC isn't all that big and not a real big deal from what I gather. I have yet to see one, though. This is the Canon 1.4x one dimensions: Dimensions: 2.7 x 1.1 in and 7 oz. I can't imagine the 2x one being much bigger! Here is the info on the Sigma EX 2x tc: Dimensions (Dia x Length) 68 x 45.3mm / 2.6 x 1.78in
Weight: 234g / 8.3oz.

Also, the footnote with this tc is: Most EOS Cameras require a lens maximum aperture of f/5.6 or larger (smaller number) for the AF system to work properly (EOS-3 can work with f/8 or larger) therefore, when converters are coupled with some large telephoto lenses, it may require the photographer to focus manually.

I can only hope this post sets you off in the right direction. Are you shooting w/ a 10D or 300D or what?

Shooting with a 10D and as always am looking for a lense to do too many things in one compact (?) package. I looked at the Sigma but it seems huge (not that the Canons are lightweight). I was hoping that the 70-200 2.8 and TC would give me most of the 100-400. I think I will be going 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 TC as being the most portable compromise and then get a 500mm prime later on when my kids get old enough to carry a lense each :-)

[chris.bailey]

[quote="Scottes"]One problem with the TCs is that you are also limited to the center focus point for AF on the 70-200 at least. So the 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x TC becomes a 140-400 f/5.6 with a single AF point.
quote]

I dont see the single AF point as too much of an issue at that sort of range but thanks for the info. A 400mm f5.6 that will be mono or tripod mounted a lot of the time is not too much of a problem either.

Decisions decisions.

[Scottes]

I dont see the single AF point as too much of an issue at that sort of range but thanks for the info.

That's cool. For me, trying wildlife/birds, AI Servo with a single AF point is tougher than having them all.

[sjprg]

For those of you looking for an inexpensive to shoot birds and wildlife, forget all the 70-200 options. Been there, done that, happy to sell my 70-200 f/2.8L plus 2X TC if anyone wants to do the same exercise over again.

The answer is the Sigma 50-500 for $800.00 from Delta International. Next step up is the Sigma 120-300 which I still can't afford at about $1900.00 plus the Sigma TC. All reports by birders is this is the lens to go with below $2500.00. All the other options run over $4000.00 up to about $35,000.00 if you are rich and built like Swartznager.

Paul

[chris.bailey]

My solution was the 70-200 f/2.8, a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, and a 1.4 TC. I lose AF on the 100-400, but it's still OK for manual focus.

Ouch! but that is sort of the conclusion I had come to, their is not a one size fits all other than that big Sigma 120 x 300 which looks like a rocket launcher and weighs about the same too,

[BrettD]

When faced with the same (similar) question this was my logic:

I wanted to have good supertelephoto lense, I don't have the $$$ for a fast prime, and like the convenience of zooms, so the 3 options in my price range were:
- Sigma 50-500 f4.5 - 6.3
- Canon 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 and 2x converters
- Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS

The sigma is quite a bit cheaper, and a bit longer, but I didn't like the f6.3 idea, and was prepared to pay for the others, plus I can't belive a sigma 10x zoom will out perform, <= 4x zoom L glass.

In the end, while the 70-200 f2.8 would have given me more flexibility (a fast zoom up to 200), I concluded that for this purchase I wanted the best quality where I intended to spend most of my time (in the 300-400 range), and the 100-400 is IMHO better than the 70-200 with a 2x converter. AND I get IS.

Brett D

[nucki]

you can check out this topic, maybe it helps...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23097

[chris.bailey]

Thanks for the advice guys, I know there have been several similar threads, I guess I was hoping for someone to come out with a killer punch reason to go one way or the other, if only life were that simple.

[chris.bailey]

When faced with the same (similar) question this was my logic:

I wanted to have good supertelephoto lense, I don't have the $$$ for a fast prime, and like the convenience of zooms, so the 3 options in my price range were:
- Sigma 50-500 f4.5 - 6.3
- Canon 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 and 2x converters
- Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS

The sigma is quite a bit cheaper, and a bit longer, but I didn't like the f6.3 idea, and was prepared to pay for the others, plus I can't belive a sigma 10x zoom will out perform, <= 4x zoom L glass.

In the end, while the 70-200 f2.8 would have given me more flexibility (a fast zoom up to 200), I concluded that for this purchase I wanted the best quality where I intended to spend most of my time (in the 300-400 range), and the 100-400 is IMHO better than the 70-200 with a 2x converter. AND I get IS.

Brett D

Have taken the plunge so 100-400 IS white torpedo is on its way!

[morenoar]

Hello sjprg , how much you willing to sell your Lens and converter for. email me

[BrettD]

Have taken the plunge so 100-400 IS white torpedo is on its way!

Good choice!!!

It is a great lense, I have not regretted buying it one bit.

Brett D

[chris.bailey]

Have taken the plunge so 100-400 IS white torpedo is on its way!

Good choice!!!

It is a great lense, I have not regretted buying it one bit.

Brett D

In the end I figured the 200-400 was the bit I wanted this for most so why buy a 70-200 and compromise it with a 1.4 or 2x TC. I have a 17-40 and a 28-135 so the 100-400 fills in my gaps nicely

[Canuck]

Chris,
Ok, if you use a 2x TC you loose 2 f-stops. Say you use the 70-200 w/ a 2x tc it becomes a 140-400 F5.6. and you can use AF if you like. You stick that on the 70-200 F4 or Canon 100-400 and I don't think the AF works anymore, not to mention it becomes unbearably slow, 2 stops worse than it is already. What I have is the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX lens and it is a 240-600 F5.6 w/ the 2x tc. I don't have the 2x tc yet, but it is in the cards, so to speak. I went thru the same sorta thinking and decided as you will know that photography is a lot of comprimises. I enjoy the heck out of it even if it weighs 5 3/4 lbs. If you're interested in pics w/ it, send me a msg thru the forum. It is a smashing lens!

The TC isn't all that big and not a real big deal from what I gather. I have yet to see one, though. This is the Canon 1.4x one dimensions: Dimensions: 2.7 x 1.1 in and 7 oz. I can't imagine the 2x one being much bigger! Here is the info on the Sigma EX 2x tc: Dimensions (Dia x Length) 68 x 45.3mm / 2.6 x 1.78in
Weight: 234g / 8.3oz.

Also, the footnote with this tc is: Most EOS Cameras require a lens maximum aperture of f/5.6 or larger (smaller number) for the AF system to work properly (EOS-3 can work with f/8 or larger) therefore, when converters are coupled with some large telephoto lenses, it may require the photographer to focus manually.

I can only hope this post sets you off in the right direction. Are you shooting w/ a 10D or 300D or what?

Shooting with a 10D and as always am looking for a lense to do too many things in one compact (?) package. I looked at the Sigma but it seems huge (not that the Canons are lightweight). I was hoping that the 70-200 2.8 and TC would give me most of the 100-400. I think I will be going 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 TC as being the most portable compromise and then get a 500mm prime later on when my kids get old enough to carry a lense each :-)

Yes the 120-300 is big but nothing compared to the 500mm Sigma CDS has. That one is about 2x the weight of the one I have. He needs the elongated lorry (18 wheeler) option for that one whilst I can skimp a little and do nicely with the trailer :)

I was kinda thinking that you coulda done nicely with the 70-200 and 2x tc. You would get a 160-640mm all said and done (2x tc and crop) effective on the 10D, at f5.6! I can't shake a stick at that. I see you went the Canon 100-400mm L glass option. I'd be interested to see how you get on with the "cool white" torpedo. Hey you will be cooool, it's white and can see lens envy from here, before you have it. But not from me. I like the Sigma 120-300mm beast I have!

[chris.bailey]

Chris,
Ok, if you use a 2x TC you loose 2 f-stops. Say you use the 70-200 w/ a 2x tc it becomes a 140-400 F5.6. and you can use AF if you like. You stick that on the 70-200 F4 or Canon 100-400 and I don't think the AF works anymore, not to mention it becomes unbearably slow, 2 stops worse than it is already. What I have is the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX lens and it is a 240-600 F5.6 w/ the 2x tc. I don't have the 2x tc yet, but it is in the cards, so to speak. I went thru the same sorta thinking and decided as you will know that photography is a lot of comprimises. I enjoy the heck out of it even if it weighs 5 3/4 lbs. If you're interested in pics w/ it, send me a msg thru the forum. It is a smashing lens!

The TC isn't all that big and not a real big deal from what I gather. I have yet to see one, though. This is the Canon 1.4x one dimensions: Dimensions: 2.7 x 1.1 in and 7 oz. I can't imagine the 2x one being much bigger! Here is the info on the Sigma EX 2x tc: Dimensions (Dia x Length) 68 x 45.3mm / 2.6 x 1.78in
Weight: 234g / 8.3oz.

Also, the footnote with this tc is: Most EOS Cameras require a lens maximum aperture of f/5.6 or larger (smaller number) for the AF system to work properly (EOS-3 can work with f/8 or larger) therefore, when converters are coupled with some large telephoto lenses, it may require the photographer to focus manually.

I can only hope this post sets you off in the right direction. Are you shooting w/ a 10D or 300D or what?

Shooting with a 10D and as always am looking for a lense to do too many things in one compact (?) package. I looked at the Sigma but it seems huge (not that the Canons are lightweight). I was hoping that the 70-200 2.8 and TC would give me most of the 100-400. I think I will be going 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 TC as being the most portable compromise and then get a 500mm prime later on when my kids get old enough to carry a lense each :-)

Yes the 120-300 is big but nothing compared to the 500mm Sigma CDS has. That one is about 2x the weight of the one I have. He needs the elongated lorry (18 wheeler) option for that one whilst I can skimp a little and do nicely with the trailer :)

I was kinda thinking that you coulda done nicely with the 70-200 and 2x tc. You would get a 160-640mm all said and done (2x tc and crop) effective on the 10D, at f5.6! I can't shake a stick at that. I see you went the Canon 100-400mm L glass option. I'd be interested to see how you get on with the "cool white" torpedo. Hey you will be cooool, it's white and can see lens envy from here, before you have it. But not from me. I like the Sigma 120-300mm beast I have!

Will post up some pics, it was a tough decision but thought I needed the extra four inches so to speak. All we need now is some weather decent enough to use it in. Am off to Dubai and the Maldives in 3 weeks so wanted it for that trip.