Help for the 100-400 lens

[xc611]

Hi, Guys

I have a 70-200/4L and a 1.4x, this combination works great for many applications. Now I am thinking to add a 100-400L to my lens collection. is it redundant to the 70-200+1.4x I already have. Thanks in advance.

[defordphoto]

Some would say so, but that extra reach you get with the 400 is quite substantial. I had a problem with the AF mechanism in my 100-400 (warranty repair) and I purchased a 70-200 f/2.8 IS to takes its place while in for repair. I sure missed that extra reach.

However, you may consider the cheaper, much lighter and sharper alternative in the 400 f/5.6 prime. Unless you absolutely need the IS, it's a killer lens and outperforms the 100-400 in sharpness (just a tick), AF speed and weight.

But, sometimes being "stuck" with just the 400 kinda sucks. Next year I will be using my 10D as a second camera with the 70-200 on it and the 400 on the MKII when shooting motorsports.

[Scottes]

I could repeat RFM's post verbatim, except the motor sports comment.

[Adam Hicks]

And I've read that the 400 5.6 is only noticably sharper wide open, when stopped down to f8 or above, they are supposed to be indistinguishable.

I shot with a guy who used a 70-200 2.8 non IS with a 2x on it all the time. He got his 400, with less image quality, and was stuck at 140mm at the wide end vs. 100. Why bother? Then he complained that he didn't have IS.

Who knows :? I DO sometimes use IS in mode 2 when horizontal panning, I think it works quite well and still allows a clean pan.

Adam

[scottbergerphoto]

The 400 f/5.6 focuses much faster then the 100-400 and in low light and overcast low contrast situations it will lock focus instantly while the 100-400 just hunts. They are both great lenses, but have different strengths and weaknesses. As for the 2X TC, I hate it. It makes the viewfinder very dark and there is a noticeable reduction in image quality.
Scott

[defordphoto]

The 400 f/5.6 focuses much faster then the 100-400 and in low light and overcast low contrast situations it will lock focus instantly while the 100-400 just hunts. They are both great lenses, but have different strengths and weaknesses. As for the 2X TC, I hate it. It makes the viewfinder very dark and there is a noticeable reduction in image quality.
Scott

And now I will reiterate Scott verbatim, though the 2xTC is not quite as bad on the MKII. Nevertheless I will agree it pretty much sucks and I never use it.

[Aylwin]

Now I am thinking to add a 100-400L to my lens collection. is it redundant to the 70-200+1.4x I already have. Thanks in advance.

Not if you go 100-400 + 1.4x. :wink:

[xc611]

Thanks all for the advice, I will go ahead to get the 100-400.

:D

[Adam Hicks]

It'll make you as happy as a little girl. I have TONS of shots taken with it at:

http://www.golilm.com/irlimages.htm

and

http://www.golilm.com/autos.htm

and

http://www.golilm.com/animals.htm

95% of these are with the 100-400L.

[defordphoto]

Now I am thinking to add a 100-400L to my lens collection. is it redundant to the 70-200+1.4x I already have. Thanks in advance.

Not if you go 100-400 + 1.4x. :wink:

No AF with that combo except with 1-series cameras.

[Aylwin]

Not if you go 100-400 + 1.4x. :wink:

No AF with that combo except with 1-series cameras.

Really?! That's too bad. :(