70-200L 2.8 IS and extender 1.4?

[Mike330R]

Can these be used together with full auto focus?
Canon's site does not mention it on the 2.8 but does on the f4?

Also both of these are weather proof?

Also the 2.8 is the only one of these two that has IS?

One last there is a price differenc eof $100 between the USA model and the Imported model. This is just a warrenty issue? How does teh imported model warrenty work?

[timmyquest]

Check out this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41922

In short though, yes it will work, and on any camera it will auto focus.

I'm not sure why the canon site says anytihng about AF issues with the f/4 either, it's only one stop thus making it f/5.6 and as far as i know all of canons EOS cameras can focus at f/5.6

At any rate, the import does not come with a warrenty if i understand it correctly. More info found here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist.jsp&A=getpage&Q=GreyMarketStatic.jsp

Think about it though...what could go wrong with a peice of glass that you wouldnt notice in time to return it to B&H?

I'm about to buy one of these myself, i'm looking at a used one first because if i remember right they are a little cheaper this way.

PS...where do you get your numbers? the import is only $10 cheaper :confused:

[Mike330R]

Thanks for the info. Now I need to bite the bullet and buy it.

I got the prices from B&H from this search:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=Canon+Zoom+Telephoto+EF+70-200mm&image.x=10&image.y=7

$1699 and $1599

[Mike330R]

Another quick question: I am buying this mainly for action sphoto's at a distance. While I can't afford the 400mm would this be the next best thing for me with a 1.4 extender?

how would the 2 extender work with this lens?

[Mike330R]

BTW: I have the Digital Rebel and the 75-300 zoom.

Just need something better.

[timmyquest]

Oh i'm sorry, i was under the impression you had the 70-200 and were looking to buy the 1.4, not the other way around :-P

I have the non IS version...you will love it!

I've got mine in my hand right now, about to go out into the woods.

Check this out

This just shows what you can do with a rebel and a 70-200 f/2.8
www.questphotos.com/bus/beard.jpg

[Mike330R]

I want both and feel I need the IS. Do lots of fast panning.

[Tom Reid]

I have a 70-200 f2.8 IS and used it on the Drebel. If your action shots are outside it will work very good for you. If indoors, i.e. hockey rink, without flash you should get to keep about 50-75% of the shots depending on the quality of lighting and time you take to set up the custom white balance. The Drebel's focusing capabilities lack somewhat compared to its big brothers.

That said the attached photo was taken with the Drebel and 70-200 f.2.8 IS combo. Shutter speed was 250, f2.8 and ISO 800. Did a minor contrast fix in Photoshop.

[Deckyon]

On the DRebel, 10D, 20D and RebelXT you can use AF on lenses where the fastest f/stop is f/5.6. The 1D Mk II and 1Ds Mk II can AF on lenses where the fastest f/stop is f/8. Yes, you can use the 70-200 f/2.8 with the 1.4x teleconverter II and have AF.

[Mike330R]

Thanks for the replies. My shots are 99% outside.

If the AF on the rebel is at f/5.6 why would the 70-200 IS be better then the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM?

[Jon]

Depends on how far away your subject's going to be. But the 70-200 IS has a constant f/2.8 aperture at all focal lengths. That's a full stop faster than the 100-400 at 100 mm, and about 1-1/2 stops at 200 mm. Even with the 1.4xTC it'll be faster than the 10-400 at 280 mm by almost a stop. Of course, beyond 280 mm, the 100-400 will outperform it any way you look at it.
Still, if your subjects are within range for a 70-200, you'll be able to use a faster shutter speed on the 70-200 than you will on the 100-400, regardless of the focal length in use. This means less subject motion and less camera motion, for a sharper picture.
[edit] Also a wider aperture for better DoF subject isolation.

[Deckyon]

Well, using teleconverters degrades (a small amount) from the image quality. To use the 70-200 and get the reach of 400mm you would need to use the 2x teleconverter. It will not be as sharp as the 100-400. There is quite a price diference between the 2 lenses. I opted for the 70-200 and the 2 different teleconverters. That being said, here are a few examples of handheld work with my 1D Mark II, 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM and 2x Teleconverter II:
handheld in low light - http://www.sturmphoto.com/displayimage.php?pos=-182
handheld (not full zoom) - http://www.sturmphoto.com/displayimage.php?pos=-181
50% crop - handheld - http://www.sturmphoto.com/displayimage.php?pos=-175
Handheld (full zoom) - http://www.sturmphoto.com/displayimage.php?pos=-176
W/ Monopod - http://www.sturmphoto.com/displayimage.php?pos=-177
The keyword here is "handheld." The 70-200 is a strong performer, even with an extender...

[timmyquest]

Thanks for the replies. My shots are 99% outside.

If the AF on the rebel is at f/5.6 why would the 70-200 IS be better then the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM?

I was going to mention it...but i didnt want to confuse you.

The most compelling thing i can tell you is that the 70-200 is canons fastest (both in aperture and focus speed), most sharp, most widely used telephoto zoom.

That said...if you dont think 200mm is long enough for you, the 100-400 is a very very good lens and also has IS (an older version though...for what its worth).

If you ever intend on going inside to poorly lit gyms, dont even think about the 100-400 because the 70-200 hardly gets the job done in that respect.

If however your looking for a lens that will take photos of little rats with wings, the 70-200 is NOT the lens for you, not even with the 1.4

[Mike330R]

My action shots are more like this:
http://www.sandbros.net/ridetrips/prezday05/sd_rail999.JPG

This is with the basic 75-300. Forget how far I was zoomed.
Will also use it for larger birds, both still and in flight.

[pcasciola]

One last there is a price differenc eof $100 between the USA model and the Imported model. This is just a warrenty issue? How does teh imported model warrenty work?It still has a warranty, but it's a "B&H 1 year warranty" instead of Canon, meaning you have to send the lens back to B&H for service.

[timmyquest]

My action shots are more like this:
http://www.sandbros.net/ridetrips/prezday05/sd_rail999.JPG

This is with the basic 75-300. Forget how far I was zoomed.
Will also use it for larger birds, both still and in flight.


Cool shot, little dark...anyways.

The only reason i have the 70-200 is because football season was around the cornre and i needed a telephoto lens. Highschool football is played at night, in the dark. The 100-400 was on my list right up until a week before i bought my lens. I then realized that i needed at the very least f/2.8

So, you need to just look deep down at what you want out of this lens. Reach or speed?

The more i deal with these stupid camera decisions the more i realize that no matter what your going to be happyw ith whatever you get.

Recently i was in search of a wide angle lens, i had it narrowed down to the tokina 17mm f/3.5 at about $300 and the canon 17-40 f/4 at $650. I pulled the trigger on the canon and i dont regret it. I'm sure i'd feel the same had i gone with the tokina. The bottom line is, if you buy quality gear, i'm sure you'll be happy with it and make it work even with its given limitations or costs.

[clicky]

Can these be used together with full auto focus?
Canon's site does not mention it on the 2.8 but does on the f4?

Also both of these are weather proof?

The f/2.8IS is weather sealed, the f/4.0 is not - but the 1.4X has a weathersealing...

Also the 2.8 is the only one of these two that has IS?

Yes - there's no IS on the f/4.0

[timmyquest]

The f/2.8IS is weather sealed, the f/4.0 is not - but the 1.4X has a weathersealing...

Dont forget about the non IS, it is also not sealed.

[k2kv]

Mike -

For what you've described, you should buy the 100-400. It is a more versatile zoom for your needs, which are mostly outside, long distance. You have already identified that the 70-200 is too short, so you will have to lug (and I do mean, LUG) around the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter. This is a heavier, longer and clumsier rig than the simple 100-400, and more costly, too (if that is a consideration). Plus, with the TC, you will have to keep swapping back and forth to get from short to long, not as handy as it looks, especially when you want to get the shot! A real pain, actually, if you're going to be outside all day, when you could just zoom from short to long and back with the 100-400, never removing the lens. It's a great lens. The long range helps makes framing decisions easier, too.

I went through the same dilemma, and ended up buying both lenses (plus the 1.4 TC)! But, if I know I will be outside all day, I'll take the 100-400; if I expect to be inside, I'll bring the 70-200, mainly because it's faster. Sometimes I'll bring both, if I think conditions will call for it. The real key, I think, is that if you know you will need 400, get 400. And, you can always add the 1.4 TC for even greater reach.

Good shooting,

Jeff

[Mike330R]

Jeff,
I had the same thoughts of the 100-400. I have read some about it but will read more.
As Timmy pointed put most pf the pic's I take are dark. the sun is usually setting (in that instence) and I'd also liek to freeze the action more. it all happes so quick, one sand rail flys by and right behond it is another.

How would the 100-400 do in lower light situations?

[k2kv]

Mike -

Because you need the reach, I believe you will still be better off with the 100-400, even as the light begins to fail. If necessary, you could use a good monopod for additional support, to compensate for the extra stop or two that you might need. This is definitely NOT a low-light lens. You get around 2-stops with the IS feature, though, so shooting at 5.6 is more like shooting at 3.5, as long as your technique is good. Not a terrible situation, AFAIC.

By comparison, the 70-200/2.8 will not be much better with the 2x TC attached. One stop better at best, but noticably lower optical performance, too.

Shooting in failing light with very long lenses is an art and science in itself which you will have to practice, and develop your skills. Monopods (even tripods), bean bags and the like will certainly help.

I say, get the 100-400, go out and shoot. Then, if you're not satisfied with your results, figure out what you need to do to make things better, and adjust as necessary.

Jeff

[Mike330R]

Thanks. I think you are right.
I will look more into it and maybe a 1.4x.

the 100-400 is cheaper than the 70-200 :) Just wish it was cheaper than that!

Thanks for all the replies!

[Mike330R]

Thanks for all the help!

I ordered the 100-400 and look forward to trying it out!