Another quick lens question.....

[Kent2]

Hi all,

I have been browsing this site for some time since I purchased my 10D and it has been very informative. Thank you to all who add to this site. :)

I shoot mainly motorcycle road racing and am trying to decide between a few lenses. I have been contacted by a magazine to get some shots for them at an upcoming race, so I want to get a better lens as I was going to do so anyway in the near future.

Lenses:

100-400 4-5.6 IS
70-200 2.8 non IS
70-200 2.8 IS

Teleconverter for 70-200 maybe 2x but more than likely 1.4?

I took some test shots at the local photo shop with the 100-400 and 70-200 non IS with the 2x TC and the 1.4 TC.
Looking over the shots I can not see that much of a differnce between all these. I could see a huge difference from my 75-300 4-5.6 IS though......

Any particular thoughts?

I have been seeing all these great shots lately, alot from the 100-400 4-5.6 IS. Cadwell produces some excellent images, and then I also saw the other road racing shots from the UK. WOW!

Thanks in advance,

Kent

[Kent2]

OK, first I have been searching on here for the last few days on the 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 4-5.6

I have found alot of info!

It comes down to buying one of the two on Friday.......

I like the 400 of the zoom and the IS, I like the 2.8 for the 70-200......

So any suggestions as to what might be the best L lens for me?

Kent

[MrChad]

Is your 75-300 IS fast enough for you?

IF so get the 100-400, else need some faster shutter for evening events get the 70-200.

For me I'd hands down do the 70-200 IS with a converter. Give me the speed. I hope the gig pays well, I can only dream of glass that fast.

Ever think of the 70-200 f4? It should save you a bundle and be very sharp to boot. Especially if it's a day time shoot outdoors.

I'm envious, I can only dream of IS high speed L glass :D

[Kent2]

The 75-300 has to be stopped down alot to get a decent shot, so no its not fast enough then...

I read that the 100-400 is sharp wide open and can be used as such.

I am thinking of maybe doing the 100-400 and then picking up a 70-200F4 a little later?

How is the push/pull for getting used to it?

Kent

[BearSummer]

Hi Guys,

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS the 100-400 IS, the 1.4x converter and the 2x. The only thing that is more flexible is my flexible friend.

Both lenses are great, the downside of the 100-400 is that it is a push zoom, so when yoo zoom from 100 to 400 it doubles i length and sucks lots of air in, when you zoom from 400-100 it pushes lots of air out. As we know from having to clean our sensors air isnt clean. To be honest its probably not going to be a problem unless it sucks in a piece of grit and it lodges inside the mechanics somewhere. The 70-200 is a twist zoom, it lengthens a bit but nowhere near as much.

The 70-200 with teh 1.4 converter on it is wonderful, there is hardly any image loss, not enough to worry about and boy you would have to be picky to see it on a print. The 2x however does make the image a bit softer, but if that saves you having to buy the 100-400 then i guess its not to much of a problem.

have a look at luminous landscape review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml) for a good review of the combinations.

Best regards

BearSummer

[Olegis]

The 70-200 is a twist zoom, it lengthens a bit but nowhere near as much.

The 70-200 features internal zooming and focusing, so it's length is constant no matter what focal length it's at.

[BearSummer]

Yep your right, my bad. Thats what happens when you havent got your kit to hand.

regards

BearSummer

[Olegis]

:wink:

[Kent2]

Would the 70-200 and 1.4x and 2x be a good option?

How about the IS?

For motorsports is it usefull to have??

Kent

[tofuboy]

IS will only help shaky hands. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS has 3 IS positions: off, vertical+horizontal stabilization, and vertical stabilization. The vertical stabilization is used for panning (should do you well for motorsports). A lot of which lens to choose depends on how much reach you need. If the 300 on your current lens is good, then I would say get the 70-200 and the 1.4x. If you're the 2x performs well for you, then get that as well if you need it. You'll have a fast 70-200 lens when you need it, and longer but 1-2 stops (same as 100-400) slower longer lens when you need it.

However, if you are rarely using the wider end of your current lens and don't need the f/2.8, then go for the 100-400.

I think either way, you'll be happy. I am personally planning on buying the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and a 1.4x teleconverter.

[Kent2]

Thanks for the input!

The two things I do not like on the 100-400, the push/pull and 4-5.6.....
Other than that it sounds great.

The 70-200 2.8 IS sounds to be sharper throughout??
It is alot faster and I can get those narrow DOF shots.

I might just go with the 70-200 IS with the 2x and then also pick up the 1.4 in a while.

Decisions on investing in glass is difficult........

Any other info I am open still,

Kent

[cc10d]

The 2X is not the best, better to use the 1.4 and get the rest in the computer.

I use the 100-400 and find it does well, but I am more of a nature photog. I believe it to be sharper than the 70-200 with any telextender. If you need the speed, up the ISO. The 70-200 is superp used by itself. FWIW chuck