70-200 f2.8 with 1.4x vs 100-400 IS

[DionM]

Yes I know, not a direct focal range comparo but anyhoo ...

I want to upgrade my 100-300. While its a good lens, I've become a sharpness freak of late and I need more :)

I am considering getting the non-IS 70-200 f2.8 and then maybe the 1.4x extender, to give me a bit of extra reach. How does this compare in the 300mm area with the 100-400 IS with respect to sharpness?

I know IS is good for cheating shutter speed ... but does it still keep sharpness?

The 400 has more reach, which is also tempting. But there are times when I want more light to avoid motion blur in the subject, hence I am considering the 2.8.

And I could maybe spring for a Bigma anyway to cover my long range needs (with a monopod) for bird and wildlife shots - from reports the Bigma is not far off the 100-400 for quality? Or maybe I would get the Canon 400 f5.6 prime ...

[Cadwell]

Get the Sigma APO 100-300mm f/4 EX. It will outperform the 70-200 + TC combination or the 100-400L at 300mm.

[DaveG]

Yes I know, not a direct focal range comparo but anyhoo ...

I want to upgrade my 100-300. While its a good lens, I've become a sharpness freak of late and I need more :)

I am considering getting the non-IS 70-200 f2.8 and then maybe the 1.4x extender, to give me a bit of extra reach. How does this compare in the 300mm area with the 100-400 IS with respect to sharpness?

I know IS is good for cheating shutter speed ... but does it still keep sharpness?

The 400 has more reach, which is also tempting. But there are times when I want more light to avoid motion blur in the subject, hence I am considering the 2.8.

And I could maybe spring for a Bigma anyway to cover my long range needs (with a monopod) for bird and wildlife shots - from reports the Bigma is not far off the 100-400 for quality? Or maybe I would get the Canon 400 f5.6 prime ...

As with many things in photography my decision was a compromise. When I was getting ready to make a buying decision a couple of years ago I asked myself a question: What will I use more often, a 70-200 or something longer? For my work, which may well differ from yours, a lens in the 70-200 range will get almost daily use while a longer lens may not. The 1.4 extender will give me that extra reach when I need it.

I also like the idea that the 70-200 f2.8L is at least a stop faster than any longer lens that I could afford. Adding the 1.4 effectively gives me a 450mm f4 lens so it's not like this is a wide angle, and it stays fast.

IS does provide extra sharpness at any given shutterspeed and Canon claims three stops of shutterspeed reduction. Understand that this only affects the camera/lens. Here's the question: WHAT IS THE SUBJECT DOING? It's fine to say that you will get no camera movement but if it takes 1/500 of a second to freeze your subject's movement and you are shooting at 1/60th, then IS won't help.

At moderate fast shutterspeeds like 1/500 of a second I think that there is still an advantage of IS, even if you are using a monopod (1/500 vs 1/4000). I just don't know if there would be much visual difference one your shutterspeeds get really high between IS and non IS shots (1/2000 vs 1/16000).

[ijohnson]

I have the 70-200 2.8 and the 1.4x and am very pleased. I have a very hard time distinguishing between the overall picture quality when the 1.4 is on it. The focus speed remains very fast and quiet as well. It is not a light set-up but I don't really care that much.

It is also very nice to have a 70-200 zoom that is so fast. I take a lot of pictures of kids though so fast shutter speeds is a must.

That lens is dynamite. You would not regret it. Go look at one. You will see.

[DionM]

Thanks guys.

The more I think about it I think I will get the 70-200 and then get a 400 f5.6 or 50-500 later on. While on holidays recently I used my 100 mm macro for some shots and I wished I had just a bit more reach, and loved the sharpness and the fast speed. Hence why I think the 70-200 will get the nod :)