Need your suggestions on these lens please.

[Ferdinand]

Sorry to repost this but I was hoping to do a continuation on a previous post by someone else but the answer I gave kept going back to the question on its original post instead of mine.

I just need a decision on the 100-400mm f/4.5~5.6L and the 70-200mm f/2.8L with 2X TC. I don't want to discuss about Prime lens of any kind. Its only a decision between this two.

I know this comparison has been hack to death many times but its tough to make a decision when you are investing a lot of money on a lens.

So here goes.... is this 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens fast enough for taking sports/racing/action shots during the night in a typical studium that has reasonably good lighting? I know my cheap 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III doesn't at a recent softball game I went to but maybe that is because its a highschool game at a local studium and maybe it doesn't have good enough lighting?

Or would going to a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with a 2X TC be much better for me? I know we all know there will be some image degradation. I have seen test done by Belmondo/Tom. And the different doesn't seem to be that great and that I am sure some post processing would bring it up to par. And went I don't need to shoot at 400mm I have a 70-200mm lens with superb optical quality.

I would very much appreciate your opinions, bare in mind I would like to leave the Primes out of this and also that I will be doing a lot of USM. With these in mind, would a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with a 2X TC be a better choice for me than a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.

Regards,
Ferdinand

[Avarond]

Ferdinand I think your not taking into account losing 2 fstops on the teleconverter. You would have a 140-400 f5.6 instead of a 100-400 f5.6 at 400mm. so basically you are now comparing image quality with a TC and the ability to take the TC off and shoot at 2.8 but only at the original 70-200mm range.

Someone correct me if im wrong about this.

[ssim]

I used my 100-400 in a neighborhood hockey rink that wasn't all that well lit and I made sure to overexpose slightly and I was still relatively unhappy with the images. In the same evening I used my 20-200 f2.8 L IS and then cropped the images to a point where I was comfortable with it in post processing.

In order to even have a chance at stopping the action with the 100-400 I was shooting images at both 800 and 1600 ISO. Obviously noise is a consideration when you get this high. Some of them weren't bad but I had to run them through Neat Image which has an impact on the sharpness of the image. I did some on the 70-200 at ISO 400 and they were more than acceptable, even after cropping.

I have gone back to the same arena and I don't even bother with the 100-400 any more. I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that this lens is going to be a daylight sporting event lens.

I'm not a fan of TC's given the loss of quality and the two stop difference.

Of course you could always get a prime :roll:

Good luck

[Ferdinand]

Hello Sheldon,

Thank you so so much, its great to hear it from someone who has used it in the situation I have explained, and you pretty much confirmed what I thought would be the same with my 75-300mm f/4~5.6 III, quality aside, the requirement to stop action is still the same, fast lens, fast lens, fast lens. I think in this case 70~200mm f2.8 would be ideal for me and if I need that extra reach, perhaps a 1.4x TC is the most I should go for.

Another question, are photos taken with 70~200mm f2.8 with 2X TC something fixable via USM? My line of thinking is that if it is something fixable in PS CS for example, then I won't have to worry about the lost of sharpness and contrast and will get the 2X TC instead of the 1.4X TC.

Regards,
Ferdinand

[kanwingshing]

FYI, extender lost cause light loss.
1.4X lost only 1 stop
2X lost 2 stops

Also, IS only cures fuzziness cause by unstable hand. It can't cure lens softness.

[Ferdinand]

kanwingshing, so from what you are telling me if I am into fast lens and good quality, I am better of with a 70-200mm f2.8 IS and a 1.4x TC? This way I get a 200 x 1.4 = 280mm f4 IS? :) Where as a 100-400mm might give me the 400mm but I lose out in speed at f5.6.

Regards,
Ferdinand

[kanwingshing]

I actually have both 1.4X and 2X extender. But I hardly uses 2X when I am shooting.
What I am trying to say is..
If you feel that you are really using the long end of 100-400mm a lot, then you should go for 100-400mm instead of 70-200mm + 2X extender.

[defordphoto]

Ferdinand: If you're not shooting professionally than I think you'll be happy with the 70-200L f/2.8 and the 2xTC. Yo'' have the best of both worlds there without having to break to bank too hard. Using the 2xTC, you'r images will be softer than with the 100-400, but they won't be horrible.

There's a site that has that exact comparison and I'm sure someone will post it soon in this thread.

[kanwingshing]

Here you go :lol:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

[defordphoto]

Here you go :lol:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

That's it! Thanks!

[Ferdinand]

Jim I have seen those comparison, by Belmondo. But if the 2X TC softness is something fixable in PS CS then I don't mine at all. So is it fixable? I am planning to take racing photos and baseball games. And I will need that reach but I just cannot afford 2 lenses right now. Its either 100-400mm or 70-200 w/1.4 or 2X TC. And 70-200 2.8L IS alone is a great lens by itself but the 100-400 wont let me shoot in the 70-200 range. So I guess it all comes down to either 1.4x or 2x huh?

Regards,
Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

LOL thanks :) I read that 400vs400 also and yup I definitely do see a difference. Again I think that is something USM can fix? and at 8x10 print I dont think we would be able to tell right?

Regards,
Ferdinand.

[Cadwell]

I know you've said you're only considering the 100-400L or the 70-200L so ignore me if you want, but there is one other option you might consider... the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8L EX (HSM). 300mm at f/2.8 or if you need more then 420mm at f/4.0 with the 1.4x TC. It's a fine lens, great in low light and still tack sharp with the 1.4x TC.

[defordphoto]

LOL thanks :) I read that 400vs400 also and yup I definitely do see a difference. Again I think that is something USM can fix? and at 8x10 print I dont think we would be able to tell right?

Regards,
Ferdinand.

Probably. Not to mention you can always add the 100-400 to your bag at a later date. USM can fix a lot, but it can't fix everything. If overdone it can be pretty ugly.

[Longwatcher]

Adding my 2bits to the discussion
Go for the 70-200/2.8L
In low light situations it makes a huge difference.
With algortihms of today you will probably be able to crop and scale up and get almost as good results then using a 2x Extender (when in low light).

In good light of daytime the 2x extender will beat cropping and the 100-400 will beat the 70-200 w/2x extender.

I have the 70-200/2.8L IS, The 100-400L and both the 1.4 and 2x extenders and that is my experience.

Once you need to take the ISO over 400 the noise starts causing problems faster then anything else does, so what ever you can do to keep the ISO at 400 or below is usually the best solution. So for that reason I recommend the 70-200/2.8L.

note: I primarily use my extenders with my 100-400 and sometimes even both at the same time. Works great in the bright light of day time.

Just my experience,

[Ferdinand]

Cadwell I like to have the IS too, I don't plan on bringing a monopod or tripod with me, I like to be mobile all the time, but thanks for your input thou, I am sure there will be those who read this that might pick up on it.

Regards,
Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

Thanks Jim and Tim,

I guess I will take it easy and not get too greedy at once, I think I will settle with the 70-200mm f2.8L IS and the 2X TC. Since most stadium lighting that I know of won't really let you get stop action picture with the 100-400mm at 400mm f5.6 or the 70-200mm with 2x TC at 400mm f5.6 (without going to ISO1600 or 3200), I am better off with the 70-200mm f2.8L IS and use the 70-200mm w/2x TC f5.6 for daylight sports photography until I can afford better lens.

By the way, how would you compare image quality of a regular 75-300mm f4-5.6 III to that of a 70-200mm f2.8L with 2x TC at 300mm both at f/5.6? One would think the 70-200mm f2.8L with 2x TC at 300mm would be much better right? Cause that is what I am planning to replace my non-L 75-300mm f4-5.6 III with. If so, then I am happy already.

Regards,
Ferdinand

[defordphoto]

Why get the 70-300? That's a waste and you already have that focal length fully covered by the 70-200 with the 2xTC. It'll be on the soft side sure, but still better than the plain-jane 70-300. Just get a 300 prime then. Those 70-300's will be way soft especially once you get used to that 70-200L.

The 100-400 is purely an outdoor sports lens and it shines there. In low-light it just won't play very nicely and you'll find yourself forcing it to do things it can't and you'll be nothing but disappointed.

[Ferdinand]

Thanks Jim, the plain Jane 75-300mm f4-5.6 III was something I got with my 35mm film Canon 500N. So that was something I got a while back :)

So I think at the end of the day I hope to have these lenses:

24-70mm f2.8L
70-200mm f2.8L IS
300mm f4L IS
1.4x TC
2x TC

The 300mm f4L IS with the 1.4x TC would make for a nice fix location sport shooting lens.

Regards,
Ferdinand

[defordphoto]

24-70mm f2.8L
70-200mm f2.8L IS
300mm f4L IS
1.4x TC


Perfect combo.

[Ferdinand]

Thanks Jim, I added the 2X TC to it, what do you think? I maybe I shouldnt even be bother with the 2X?

So all I have to do now is to prioritize it according to my needs :)

Regards,
Ferdinand

[defordphoto]

Thanks Jim, I added the 2X TC to it, what do you think? I maybe I shouldnt even be bother with the 2X?

So all I have to do now is to prioritize it according to my needs :)

Regards,
Ferdinand

I have no opinion there as I have never used a 2x. I know a lot of people don't like them, but that does not necessarily mean too much.

[MediaMagic]

LOL thanks :) I read that 400vs400 also and yup I definitely do see a difference. Again I think that is something USM can fix? and at 8x10 print I dont think we would be able to tell right?

Regards,
Ferdinand.

Probably. Not to mention you can always add the 100-400 to your bag at a later date. USM can fix a lot, but it can't fix everything. If overdone it can be pretty ugly.


Also, USM amounts depend on whether you want to print the shot or just keep it digital. I have experimented with some outrageous USM settings which look completely nasty on the monitor, but in print, looked fine. If you are going to print the shots, you can sharpen more. There are some who espouse a three pass sharpening technique. It does work well for prints. Very well.

If the rest of the shot is good, and you are just correcting for a little softness with the extender, USM should work fine.

[Ferdinand]

Thanks MediaMagic, I guess its time to coin USM as "a poor man's L Prime Lens" if no one has already done so :)

Regards,
Ferdinand