Advice Needed on Zoom Lens Selection

[SlickStreet16]

I've recently purchased a Canon 10D and I'm shopping for glass. I need a zoom lens setup that I can use for sports (specifically soccer), as well as wildlife photography (deer, birds, etc).

I have narrowed my search to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with a 2X converter and the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.

With respect to shooting soccer, a friend who has the 100-400 lens tells me the push-pull action is invaluable. He says that the autofocus gets confused, so he manually focuses all shots. He says it is much easier to focus quickly with the push-pull zoom than to have two controls to twist. This makes sense to me, but I like the flexibility of the 70-200mm f/2.8 with the 2x.

I have two questions:

1. Does anyone have any feedback on manually focusing and zooming the 70-200mm with a 2x for sports action shots?

2. Is it possible to get sharp autofocused shots with multiple objects at different distances in the picture using the 70-200mm and a 2x converter?

Thanks in advance for any input you can give me on these issues.

[SlickStreet16]

Guess I stumped everyone. :roll:

Anyway, disregard the question. I just ordered the 100-400, as I decided that most of my use of the lens would be at 400mm. I'll pick up a 28-135 to cover my other needs

[Andy_T]

Hi,

the 2x TC has the reputation of being noticeably less sharp than the 1.4 TC.

that said, you obviously have taken the right decision.

Best regards,
Andy

[Belmondo]

I have both lenses being discussed, and as long as the 100-400 is available, I will never use the 70-200 f/2.8L IS with the 2X TC. Under very controlled circumstances on a tripod, the combination will give good results, but the 100-400 will be consistently better with greater convenience. Also, IMHO the push/pull zoom is easier to use where your subjects are moving rapidly such as in motor racing or sports events.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Agree wit all of the above.. the sacrifice with the 100-400mm however is the loss of that f/2.8 when low light requires it.. but for most applications this may not be a problem.

Also.. since you will own the 100-400mm you may cut costs with the 70-200mm range in a future purchase by not getting the IS version.. considering the inexpensive Sgma alternative.. or even going with the affordable 200mm f/2.8 prime...

[Wickedfn4u]

I have 4 daughters in soccer so I shoot a lot of that indoors, outdoors, sunny days and grey. I went with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and love it. I also own both 1.4 and 2x tc and use them on occasion with the 70-200. The only thing I was concerned with was the speed on the 100-400 on the darker days or forget about it indoors. I went with the 120-300 2.8 by sigma and have the option of the TC's.

[SlickStreet16]

Thanks for the help, guys. I'm glad that most of you agree with my choice. I was being somewhat romanced by the f/2.8, but most of my stuff will be outdoors in decent light.

I'm planning to pick up a 28-135mm IS, which should cover most of my other needs.

[SlickStreet16]

Also.. since you will own the 100-400mm you may cut costs with the 70-200mm range in a future purchase by not getting the IS version.. considering the inexpensive Sgma alternative.. or even going with the affordable 200mm f/2.8 prime...

Thanks, that's a point worth considering. I'll take a look at the Sigma.