Your veiw on lens

[Primevci]

Im thinkign of getting a nice lens for my DR, and i wanted a 100-400L at first but alot of people on another forum are saying to get a 70-200L i belive and get a 2x teleconverter. now if im correcf ththis would make it a 400mm also but woudl the apture go from 2.8 to 5.6 so wouldnt it jsut be the same as gettign a 100-400l? i dont understand why people are saying to do this..... plus it would be about 2000 compared to 1300

[DocFrankenstein]

70-200 f/2.8 is a "faster" lens.

Meaning that it lets in more light allowing for faster shutter speeds.

100-400 is a nice lens, if you only shoot on a sunny day from 10 to 4... if you want to shoot inside, or with semi decent conditions, you need as much light as you can get.

That's why they (probably) recommend the 70-200. Then if you need the extra reach, you can get the converter.

Cheers

[Primevci]

I dont see the point of shooting inside with a 100-400 lens, ar eu saying this lens only works in the best possiable condtions.....???? but witha x2 converter on the 70-200 wouldnt u be killing the perfomance anyways..

[tofuboy]

The main thing to ask yourself is what you are wanting to do with the lens. the 100-400 will be good for outdoor, while the 70-200 will be good indoors and outdoors, but you don't get the reach with the 70-200. as you do with the 100-400. I hear that the 2x teleconverter degrades the quality a noticeable amount, but the 1.4x is decent.

Mind you, this is all based on stuff I have read and have no personal experience. I am planning on buying the 70-200 in a month or two, as it fits my needs better.

[DocFrankenstein]

I dont see the point of shooting inside with a 100-400 lens, ar eu saying this lens only works in the best possiable condtions.....???? but witha x2 converter on the 70-200 wouldnt u be killing the perfomance anyways..
It only works outdoor... basically. Indoor, the shutter speeds are gonna be way too slow.

2x converter does degrade image quality. Tell me this: What do you shoot? Do you absollutely need the 280-400 range to shoot? What conditions are you in? Is this your first fast tele zoom?

[Primevci]

With this lens probly be all outdoors birds animals people boats and anyhtign i can take a picture of outdoors but probly mosly birds and animals.... ill probly spend money on a indoor lens later probly somethign liek a 18-75 or something..... i jsut dotn see useing 70-200 in doors or a 100-400

[robertwgross]

(referring to the 100-400mm lens)
It only works outdoor... basically. Indoor, the shutter speeds are gonna be way too slow.


Unfortunately, you failed to consider the fact that the 100-400mm L lens has I.S., and that allows handheld shooting by a couple of stops slower. Or, you can switch off the I.S. and shoot off a tripod.

In July, I used it at a wedding (indoors), so I don't know how you get these ideas that it only works outdoors.

---Bob Gross---

[Primevci]

U got some examples????? i jsut want to know what im saving up for.....

[Sherpa]

I bought the 70-200 f4 to use with my 300D and soon after bought the 1.4x converter to give me more reach. These are both superb lenses but I found that I was using them together nearly all the time. This weekend I will be buying the 100-400 as it will give me much more flexibility for wildlife and motorsport photography. If this is the sort of thing you shoot go for the 100-400mm.

[Cadwell]

Im thinkign of getting a nice lens for my DR, and i wanted a 100-400L at first but alot of people on another forum are saying to get a 70-200L i belive and get a 2x teleconverter. now if im correcf ththis would make it a 400mm also but woudl the apture go from 2.8 to 5.6 so wouldnt it jsut be the same as gettign a 100-400l? i dont understand why people are saying to do this..... plus it would be about 2000 compared to 1300

What you need to decide is what you are going to be shooting. If you are going to be using mainly the 200-400mm end of the zoom then without question you buy the 100-400L. If you are mainly going to be shooting in the 70-200mm range with only an occasional foray above 200mm then get the 70-200mm and a TC.

Using any teleconvertor will degrade the image a bit. The 2x TC degrades it noticeably.

[PacAce]

Im thinkign of getting a nice lens for my DR, and i wanted a 100-400L at first but alot of people on another forum are saying to get a 70-200L i belive and get a 2x teleconverter. now if im correcf ththis would make it a 400mm also but woudl the apture go from 2.8 to 5.6 so wouldnt it jsut be the same as gettign a 100-400l? i dont understand why people are saying to do this..... plus it would be about 2000 compared to 1300

I have both the 100-400 IS L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and they each have their uses. For birds and distant wildlife, I always use the 100-400. I might use my 70-200 with the 1.4X TC if that's all I happen to have at the time but it doesn't give me the reach that the 100-400 does.

But for indoors and outdoors where the subjects are large or not so far away, the 70-200 works a lot better than the 100-400.

Like you, I shoot a lot of birds so my first lens was the 100-400. I got the 70-200 some time later.

[BearSummer]

Hi Primevci,

have a look at the following review of the lens combinations you are thinking about 400 vs 400 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml)

It makes more sense to use the 100-400 out doors but you can use it inside as you get the two extra stops from the IS. so you can handhold it at between 25th and 100th of a second depending on your zoom level.

The 70-200 2.8 comes in three flavours, f2.8 with IS/ f2.8 without IS / f4. If you put the 2x onto it expect the quality to decrease. With IS turned on you can hand hold it at 15th to 50th of a second.

As with all questions of the type "Which should I get?" the answer is both... but in the short term the 100-400 for birds and the 70-200 later on cos its just good to have.

Best regards

BearSummer

[JLS Photo]

Im thinkign of getting a nice lens for my DR, and i wanted a 100-400L at first but alot of people on another forum are saying to get a 70-200L i belive and get a 2x teleconverter. now if im correcf ththis would make it a 400mm also but woudl the apture go from 2.8 to 5.6 so wouldnt it jsut be the same as gettign a 100-400l? i dont understand why people are saying to do this..... plus it would be about 2000 compared to 1300

I have both the 100-400 IS L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and they each have their uses. For birds and distant wildlife, I always use the 100-400. I might use my 70-200 with the 1.4X TC if that's all I happen to have at the time but it doesn't give me the reach that the 100-400 does.

But for indoors and outdoors where the subjects are large or not so far away, the 70-200 works a lot better than the 100-400.

Like you, I shoot a lot of birds so my first lens was the 100-400. I got the 70-200 some time later.I'm with ~you~.

[DocFrankenstein]

Unfortunately, you failed to consider the fact that the 100-400mm L lens has I.S., and that allows handheld shooting by a couple of stops slower. Or, you can switch off the I.S. and shoot off a tripod.

Whoops... true... stand corrected. *hangs head in shame*

I still think 5.6 is a bit slow though.

[roanjohn]

Get the 100-400........... :D :D

WHY?? you ask.........

I don't know.......just get it!!!

Ro1

[Olegis]

Unfortunately, you failed to consider the fact that the 100-400mm L lens has I.S., and that allows handheld shooting by a couple of stops slower. Or, you can switch off the I.S. and shoot off a tripod.

That of course depends on what you're shooting - 5.6 aperture at 400mm may not provide fast enough shutter speeds for moving subjects (the IS is great, but only for non-moving subjects).

[Lamium]

With this lens probly be all outdoors birds animals people boats and anyhtign i can take a picture of outdoors but probly mosly birds and animals.... ill probly spend money on a indoor lens later probly somethign liek a 18-75 or something..... i jsut dotn see useing 70-200 in doors or a 100-400

When you want to shoot all these subject with only one lens, then you really have no choice at all. Just buy the 100-400 L :D
It is a very good lens.

[Primevci]

Thanks for the response im really leaning towards wildlife photography and i think its cause i love to hunt, and well i hunt every year and get nothing, its allot of fun just sitting in the middle of no where relaxing, so i think this is why i want to shoot wildlife, plus i find pictures of wild animals alot cooler then most things i see I.E. cars ext... and also liek taking pictures of scenery... i think the 100 -400 is gonna be the choice for me im not gettting it any time soon but im really realzing the importance of good optics... so im gonna start saving.. and when i get that 1400 then ill make my purchase.. thanks for all the responese thanks everyone...

i jsut formatted so i dotn have a spell check ill have it installed asap...

Also 5.6 might be slow but if i get the 2x tele then its jsut gonna be that anyways and that was my point of the post i need somethign that can reach that dotn cost 6k lol.....