70-200 f2.8L with TC 1.4 or 100-400

[JBillings]

It it worth buying the 100-400L? How much difference will there be between that and just adding a 1.4 TC II to my 70-200? Is it worth the difference?

[defordphoto]

1.4 only takes you to 280. If you want to shoot long get the 100-400. Or just get the 400 f5.6. It's cheaper, has faster AF, is lighter and a taste sharper. I have all three. :)

[musthavemuzk]

so which one can i borrow then?

but seriously which is more important for outdoor action photograpy?
reach, sharpness, weight?
i am sure this is a short and long answer thing, but please do entertain me.

from where i have been in the past i could prolly get by with the 70-200 2.8 and get great shots. but not all the time. this is at the dragstrip.
now the dirt oval i would prolly need the reach as i would be shooting from the stands more than likely.

i have considered the 300/4 IS and the 400/5.6 but just concerned about enough light with the relatively higher f-stop.

please do shed some light.

Monty

[poke]

Why don't you go for the x2 converter?

[jeffbmw]

I have the exact questions as you. I've done a lot of research into it still haven't decided which to buy, I'm no expert and I can only tell you what I found.


-100-400 push pull sucks, or is hard to get used to ( I did actually go and try it and it's true )
-100-400 is slow and not as sharpe and may not give cover quality magzine shots

and I guess I don't need to explain the 70-200 with x2 convertor is not as sharpe as the 100-400. I'm only telling what I found on the net and asking a few sportbike photographers. Again I'm no pro and hopefully someone can backup my findings.

a friend of mine bought the prime 300L F4 with a 1.4 I think that's the way to go if you can manage it. I imagine the 400 F4 would be a good lens too.

But again I know nothing lol

[rickyd]

I have both! I bought the 100-400 thinking I needed the extra reach but found I cant live with the softer image quality compared to the 70-200 F2.8 IS which is tack sharp. I shoot my 70-200 routinely with the 1.4 extender and much prefer it over the 100-400. IMHO.
RickyD

[poke]

The 2x that bad is it? I've been considering the 1.4x only because I loose less in the light department as its only 1 stop. I really love my 70-200mm f2.8L IS, but there is no point using the converters if your unhappy with the end result anyway.

[musthavemuzk]

input is good no matter if it is for or against a lens.

things that most concern me about the 1-400 is the softness i keep reading about. i do believe i could learn to use the push pull, but in that type of photography i think tacksharp is what i would prefer.

price is of course a concern but a few hundred between good lenses is tough to let it make the total decision.

guess i need to do some reading now on the 3 and 4 primes.

i apologize for busting in on your thread, but i felt it better than starting a similar one.
thanx

Monty

[jeffbmw]

I have both! I bought the 100-400 thinking I needed the extra reach but found I cant live with the softer image quality compared to the 70-200 F2.8 IS which is tack sharp. I shoot my 70-200 routinely with the 1.4 extender and much prefer it over the 100-400. IMHO.
RickyD

Yup ... that's exactly what I thought. I know to definetaly buy the 7-200 but damn that extra 700 for is is killing me. I would end up using this lens for weddings and indoor shots. oh if I was rich lol

Thanks for the good feedback.

[davidwegs]

I use the 70-200/L and a 1.4x. I used to have the 2x but it looses too much of the sharpness and an extra stop of light :-(

[JBillings]

Answers: I'm typically interested in wildlife pictures.

Assumption: The 1.6 FOV and the 1.4 TC should give me the equilvalent of 448mm...or something like it. Yes, the 100-400 will give me a more reach, but is the money difference really worth it? I really love my 70-200 and you'd have to pry it out of my dying hands.

[alan sh]

Have you thought about the Sigma 80-400 OS (Sigmas answer to IS) ? Its cheaper than the 100-400 but gives pretty decent pictures across the range.

[IanD]

-100-400 push pull sucks, or is hard to get used to ( I did actually go and try it and it's true )
-100-400 is slow and not as sharpe and may not give cover quality magzine shots

I think that it is time for RFM to post a couple of his 100-400 images. The 100-400 is a very sharp lens and unless you re shooting in total darkness, reasonably fast. RMF shoots a ton of auto races with it as do other race photogs here. I use mine a lot for wildlife and have never found it to be not sharp, even with a 1.4 TC behind it. Cruise through this site http://www.pbase.com/giant001/eco_museum and you will find a lot of wildlife images captured with the 100-400.
The push/pull takes a day to get used to and while it does make the lens quite long fully extended, it can be used to beat off a herd of angry elephant in a pinch.:)

[defordphoto]

-100-400 push pull sucks, or is hard to get used to ( I did actually go and try it and it's true )
-100-400 is slow and not as sharpe and may not give cover quality magzine shots


Hah! I beg to differ. Actually the push-pull of the 100-400 can come in quite handy for many types of shooting. It has a ring so you can "lock" the lens say at 230mm and is a very sharp lens...

Can't get cover photos? HAH!

FHM Australia paid quite a handsome sum for this photo:

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/img_4261_std.jpg

And I got the cover with 4 double page spreads in an issue of Heartland Magazine in 2004 with the 10D and the 100-400.

So, JBillings, be sure and shop around before you toss your money down. Also, DO NOT think the 2x teleconverter can even come close to matching the 100-400 or any lens that covers the 400mm spectrum. You will be sadly disappointed.

Do not dump the 70-200. That's one golden prize. Got a store nearby that rents lenses? MIght be worth a shot. For wildife I think out with the 70-200 and a 400 f5.6, you could pretty much shoot what you want. The addition of the 1.4x TC would also be a nice addition.

See my galleries on my website. Feel free to PM or email me too if you wanna chat away from the forum.

[IanD]

I love that image!

[defordphoto]

Thanks. I'm kinda partial to that series...Guess I should have some prints made someday...

[darkdrakon]

I have the 100-400 and Ican tell you there is a learning curve with this monster but once mastered you get very good to great shots.

[who me?]

RFM, AWESOME shot!!! I just wish I could take shots like that...
Jbillings,
As for the push pull zoom. I prefer it on the larger lens. I used to have a 100-300 f4 one touch zoom where zooming and focusing was on the same ring. I liked it then and like my 100-400 more because I don't have to focus at the same time. My suggestion would be that if you are unsure of the 100-400, why not get the 1.4x and the 400 f5.6. It will be about the same $$ as the 100-400 and if you need a zoom, the 1.4 on the 70-200 would be pretty handy and still look good. Of course the comment of renting a 100-400 is a good idea to make sure you like it.

[rfreschner]

Hah! I beg to differ.

You've convinced me - what a great shot! Definitely adding to the wishlist at B&H.

[JBillings]

My mind thanks you...my pocket book does not!
I can't take it with me so I might as well spend it at Bhphoto

[flyfishnj]

Just a quick test shot with the 100-400 when I opened it up. Sitting on my couch, this was sitting on my mantle 10 ft away shot with a flash. No post processing other than resize for posting. Note exif data:


http://home.comcast.net/~flyfishnj/IMG_5185.jpg

ExposureTime - 1/60 seconds
FNumber - 5.60
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/60 seconds
ApertureValue - F 5.60
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 5.60
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
Flash - Flash fired, auto mode, red-eye reduction mode
FocalLength - 400 mm
ColorSpace - sRGB
Flash mode - Auto + red-eye reduction
Focus mode - AI Focus
Image size - Large
Easy shooting mode - Full Auto
ISO Value - 100

[jeffbmw]

Hah! I beg to differ. Actually the push-pull of the 100-400 can come in quite handy for many types of shooting. It has a ring so you can "lock" the lens say at 230mm and is a very sharp lens...

Can't get cover photos? HAH!

Well like I said I never really did a head to head comparison with the lens my self and I'm no pro photographer. I think your photo's are amazing don't get me wrong.

I also that the animal shots where great. Now I'm not going to critque anyone cause I don't know **** and can't take a good picture for the life of me. But one thing I did notice that the shots all became sharper as there was my light. Now lets say I'm shooting and the day is cloudy would the shots be as good with the 7-200.. probally not. I can't afford both lens so I'm think all around practicality .... and all in one deal.... until I make some money and can afford both.

Also the 100-400 is not a sealed lens and acts like a vacuum.... don't get me wrong I love your shots. You've made me think again. I hope I'm not being to difficult here but it's going to take a little more to persway me to the 100-400. Also I think that locking ring is hedius...and to close to the other ring...

Jeff M

http://www.roadripping.com/html/modules/photo/index.php my gallery.... soon to be sportbikes...

[cc10d]

I sure do not know where this supposed soft lens idea comes from. Look at RFMs pictures, what is soft? I sure enjoy mine, no complaints on sharpness here. the versitility of not needing to swap lens' when hiking, stalking wildlife is great. Just keep the shutter speed up to match the movement of your subject.

[IanD]

Jeff,
I've used my 100-400 under all sorts of conditions and there is nary a speck of dust in it. The "vacume' effect has been over played on the net by a lot of folks who have never even held the lens. As far as sharpness goes, I've shot mine at ISO800 wide open and you could not tell so from the resulting images. Loosing the light? Up the ISO.
A lot of the negative comments about any quality lens comes fom "operator error".

[chris.bailey]

Ha Ha Ha. When I first started reading this I thought to myself "these guys need to see one of Jims pit lane pics"..scroll down and yep, there it is. I wonder how many 100-400's that shot has sold :-)

For a long extension lens like the 100-400, push pull is actually better as you would be turning a wheel forever. What I like is the ability to shoot long at 400 and then pull in fast to 100 as something gets closer. You would struggle to do that with a wheel.

70-200 2.8 and a 1.4x is a nice combination but the 100-400 is the Daddy.

[defordphoto]

Ha Ha Ha. When I first started reading this I thought to myself "these guys need to see one of Jims pit lane pics"..scroll down and yep, there it is. I wonder how many 100-400's that shot has sold :-)

Many. I know for a fact the two members here started digital photography because of seeing that series. Those photos pushed them over the edge.

However, they did not come out of the camera that way. Just a little white point fixing as it was a cloudy day and I think I used 200/.5/0 USM and voila! Oh yeah, kicked the color saturation a few notches.

[chris.bailey]

Many. I know for a fact the two members here started digital photography because of seeing that series. Those photos pushed them over the edge.

However, they did not come out of the camera that way. Just a little white point fixing as it was a cloudy day and I think I used 200/.5/0 USM and voila! Oh yeah, kicked the color saturation a few notches.

As it said in an article I picked up a few days ago though "...the best of the current crop of DSLR's produce images that, out of the can, are a little disappointing in terms of contrast and sharpness, particularly if shot RAW or with little in-camera processing of JPG's. The detail is, however, present in the data and a little post processing brings these images to life....no amount of USM sharpening can re-create detail that did not exist in the first place"

[JBillings]

Folks, thanks for the sample images. I'm blown away.

[flyfishnj]

Many. I know for a fact the two members here started digital photography because of seeing that series. Those photos pushed them over the edge.

However, they did not come out of the camera that way. Just a little white point fixing as it was a cloudy day and I think I used 200/.5/0 USM and voila! Oh yeah, kicked the color saturation a few notches.

When I was trying to suck pcasciola into buying a DSLR, yours were the first pictures that I showed him.

[defordphoto]

Cool! Now three that I know about. Hard to find a better compliment than that. :)

[musthavemuzk]

this seems like some good advice or at least something to really think about.

Monty

My suggestion would be that if you are unsure of the 100-400, why not get the 1.4x and the 400 f5.6. It will be about the same $$ as the 100-400 and if you need a zoom, the 1.4 on the 70-200 would be pretty handy and still look good. Of course the comment of renting a 100-400 is a good idea to make sure you like it.

[musthavemuzk]

well this past friday Mac and I hit up a few camera shops a few hours from us. as they were the closest ones.
the one shop let us play for quite awhile with various lenses.
the push pull was definitely wierd. the 1-4 was a bit sticky as compared to the other push pull lens we held. the AF though was damn fast. which suprise us both.
but before we held an L we got to hold the tamron 200-500. DAYUM talk about forever to zoom with it. i can see why the push pull now. it was 3-4 times longer to zoom with that tamron over the push pull L's.

Monty

[pcasciola]

Cool! Now three that I know about. Hard to find a better compliment than that. :)I can't believe I missed this thread!!! But yep, it was your Indy Car galleries that pushed me over the edge to make the move from high end digital P&S to dSLR. So it's definitely at least 3. :D

I'm still not sold on the 100-400 though, even though that's an awesome cover shot you got there. I'm leaning more toward the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for this summer. No IS (or OS in this case), but it's 2 full stops faster. Plus, I can through a 1.4x on there and have a 170-420mm f/4.

[MarkH]

I'm still not sold on the 100-400 though, even though that's an awesome cover shot you got there. I'm leaning more toward the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for this summer. No IS (or OS in this case), but it's 2 full stops faster. Plus, I can through a 1.4x on there and have a 170-420mm f/4.

I think that you are right on this. For me the 70-200 f2.8L IS will be my first L lens and then there will be either the 24-70L or the SIgma 120-300EX (depending on how much I need longer/wider). But I need the 70-200IS for my Rally photos, there is just too much dust for a lens that sucks in air and is not sealed (my 28-135 can go in for a clean once I have the 70-200). I also like the f2.8 for the focus speed/accuracy, several Canon bodies offer a higher precision focus mode when using f2.8 or better.

[Thenethiel]

Damn, I read this thread and all it convinced me of is that I want the 70-200, 100-400, AND a 1.4x TC.

If my checking account was an intelligent, physical being, it would kill you all.

[SDK^]

There was a test on Luminous Landscape comparing the 100-400L and 70-200 F2.8L IS with a 2x converter.

Click (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml)

[musthavemuzk]

thanx for the read SDK
short article but it gets to the point. and that is the point...

Monty