70-200mm 4L with 1.4 or 100-300mm

[mrclark321]

I could really use some help with this one please!!!!!!!
At present I have 3 lenses as you can see from my signiture and have a 100-300mm on the way. I really really really want the 70-200mm f/4.0 L. I have read and seen nothing but good from this lense so my question is this! The 100-300mm is to get me by till I get the 70-200 next year, how much will I loose by getting rid of the 100-300mm lense? Should I look at getting a 1.4 extender after the purchase of the
70-200?

Thanks everyone
Dan

[FlyingPete]

I can tell you that cropped images on the 70-200 are better than the 75-300 @ 300mm, so you don't really gain that much from the extra 100mm there. From what I have heard the 100-300 is a sharper lens, so I doubt the same applies.

The minor downside is at the wide end, the 100-300 will be faster than the 70-200+TC combintation.

[raylks]

Don't forget there is 1.4x teleconverter. You can extend the reach of 70-200mm f4 with the teleconverter!

[mrclark321]

with the converter it will be 280mm is this correct?

Any drawbacks?

[mrclark321]

I tried taking some pics at my daughters birthday party the other day and they really turned out bad!!! I have been trying to learn but it gets frustrating some times!!
Is it usually harder to take better quality pictures inside at least that is what I am finding!!

Dan

[mrclark321]

How will this lense perform indoors??

[grego]

If you are buying a tele-extender for the 70-200, you should get the 70-200 f/2.8 rather than f/4. You are still taking away a lot of your stops by putting on the extender. I guess it all depends on what you use the lens for, basically.

[ron chappel]

This basic question (100-300usm V 70-200/4L + 1.4TC) is a very good one...and one for which there is VERY little info around.
I have seen several 75-300's compared with the 70-200+1.4TC combo and the cheaper lens gets 'kinda close'
Given that the 100-300usm is abit sharper at the long end than the 75-300 it might well give the L combo abit of a push:)
...of course anytime you use the 70-200 without the TC it would be significantly better than any consumer zoom :):)

[Medic1]

The 70-200 is a great lens. I get just as good of results at 200mm or less from it by cropping and enlarging as friends do with 75-300 Canon and N*kon equivelants. If your shooting in good sunlight, which I do most of the time the TC dropping the aperture to F5.6 is not a big deal. In fact, alot of my shots are around f8 as I find this is the "sweet spot" for my 70-200 f4L

[cfcRebel]

Hey Dan, i'll be glad to offer you my comment on the EF 100-300mm f4.5/5.6 Non-IS. I have mine for two weeks now. This lens is not for low light environment. It gave me sharp, crisp images when the subject is directly under the sun, less than about 15 ft away from me. I am not satisfied with the result when the subject is further than 20 ft, even though on bright sunny day plus a tripod at 300mm f8. I like to shoot birds, and as u know most of the time they are covered by the tree leaves, under the shade. So i really have hard time getting ncie crisp images that I want when using my 100-300. I don't blame it on the lens totally because I am still an amateur in photography. But as someone here said before, when u have a good lens, you know who to blame when a mistake occurs. But when u have a so so lens, you don't know if it is you or the lens that causes the problem.

I am trying out another 100-300mm next week (to rule out the bad copy theory). If it gives me different/better results. I'll let u know.
Dan, I am saving for the 70-200 f4L. Of course, the 1.4X TC too. ;)

[FlyingPete]

Hey Dan, i'll be glad to offer you my comment on the EF 100-300mm f4.5/5.6 Non-IS. I have mine for two weeks now. This lens is not for low light environment. It gave me sharp, crisp images when the subject is directly under the sun, less than about 15 ft away from me. I am not satisfied with the result when the subject is further than 20 ft, even though on bright sunny day plus a tripod at 300mm f8. I like to shoot birds, and as u know most of the time they are covered by the tree leaves, under the shade. So i really have hard time getting ncie crisp images that I want when using my 100-300. I don't blame it on the lens totally because I am still an amateur in photography. But as someone here said before, when u have a good lens, you know who to blame when a mistake occurs. But when u have a so so lens, you don't know if it is you or the lens that causes the problem.

I am trying out another 100-300mm next week (to rule out the bad copy theory). If it gives me different/better results. I'll let u know.
Dan, I am saving for the 70-200 f4L. Of course, the 1.4X TC too. ;)

What was the shutter/aperture/ISO combination on the low light shots? Most bad low light shots are caused by using too slow a shutter speed, or too high an ISO to try and compensate.

I am wary of going to the 70-200 f4 due to the fact that I shoot alot in low light and use IS almost all the time. That is why I ruled out the 100-300, and probably why I will wait until I can afford the 70-200 f2.8 IS. You may find that the 70-200 f4 doesn't solve your problem.

[cfcRebel]

I know i won't gain alot if i choose the 70-200 f4L over the 100-300mm for low light shots, especially if I add the 1.4CT. But that's not my main concern. My main concern is the sharpness and crisp of the image. For instance, under a good condition(plenty of light), I believe shooting a non-moving subject that is 30ft far @ f5.6 280mm, the 70-200f4L+1.4CT will probably give me the image quality I want, but the 100-300mm USM won't. I bought the 100-300 because I need a telephoto lens, but if they tell me the zoom range between 200-300 is likely to give me soft picture, that kind of defeats the purpose of having a telephoto lens. Unless someone tells me otherwise, i think the 70-200f4L +1.4CT will fulfill my need. ;)

[mrclark321]

Is the 70-200 f/4L strickly an outdoor lense?

[cactusclay]

Is the 70-200 f/4L strickly an outdoor lense?
I don't think it is strickly an outdoor lens, but in dim light it's a bit harder to see through an F4 lens, then say a 2.8 or 1.8,1.4,1.2,ect. I think what you need to get is a flash and one of those lightspheres, if you want to shoot indoor portraits. Part of the problem with indoor shots, is mixing different types of lights, but that problem can be solved by using custom white balance. :D

[tim]

Another problem with indoors pictures is you often use a flash, and get a very flat look. I'm going to do everything I can to avoid using a flash when doing portraits.

[FlyingPete]

Another problem with indoors pictures is you often use a flash, and get a very flat look. I'm going to do everything I can to avoid using a flash when doing portraits.

I'll second that. A flash is a last resort. That is why I'm hanging out for some seriously high ISO with some seriously low noise, if that ever happens.

[mrclark321]

Thanks everyone for all the input. It is so easy to get caught up in the
"L" craze because the results are quite obvious. I just received an email that my 100-300mm is in transit and I should receive it shortly. Another toy to play with
but I still want the 70-200L.

Dan

[mikesd]

Shot with a Canon 100-300.

[cfcRebel]

That's a nice shot, mike. May I know the exif of that shot? Thx.

[mrclark321]

Very nice Mike, thanks for the shot.

Dan

[mikesd]

Shot with a 300D, handheld at 300mm, in av mode f/8. Thanks everyone.

[mrclark321]

Do you have any more shots from this lense you could post Mike?

Thanks Dan

[mikesd]

I just posted this one and one other in nature and animals. they are quite a bit larger files.

[mikesd]

Here is another of the landing.

[willg]

is the purple fringing bad on that lens? i heard that it was pretty bad at 300mm and that it was very soft

[mikesd]

I havn't noticed a purple fringing problem. Sure its a little soft at 300 but a lot sharper there than most of the other consumer lenses in this range. These were shot handheld @ 300mm.http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71451

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Why don't you just return the 100-300 or something, save up another 300 bucks and buy the 70-200L? Your pretty much half way there, and it's obvious that the 100-300 isn't what you want.... If it were me, I'd just save my cash and get the 70-200 f/4L. I couldn't bare wasting my money on something I don't want, when what I do truly want is within financial reason. I guess since you've already bought it though, stick with the 100-300mm. Have some fun with it, and in a year like you said get that 70-200L. I'm not sure if you need the 1.4x extender though..... if you really needed the extra length you could just use your 100-300mm if you keep that. I donno.... just some thoughts......

[PixCasey]

How much more could you afford? The cost difference between the 70-200f4L +1.4CT and just getting the 70-200L 2.8 +1.4CT might be my deciding factor. I haven't used the 100-300 so I can't comment on that one but i love my 70-200L 2.8 (favorite lens for bikini shoots)...
Dan Casey
http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=80249

Canon 20D, Canon Rebel 300, EF 70-200 2.8 IS USM L , EF 24-70 2.8 USM L, EF 16-35 USM L, EF 75-300 4-5.6 IS, 1.4 Extension, TWO 420 Speedlite EX's, ONE 550 Speedlite EX, 6 GIGS OF CARDS, TONS OF RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES, MONO-POD, TRIPOD, REBEL KIT LENS, A PLETHORA OF LENSE FILTERS, REFLECTORS, SCWIBS :cool:

[mrclark321]

My thaught was to get the 70-200mm f/4 next year and then sell
the 100-300mm lense. My problem is that since Jan. I baught 2 cameras and 3 lenses
and I am capped. ( keep wife happy..very important )
The 100-300mm cost me less than $300 Can but the 70-200mm f/4 is going to cost a minimum and I mean minimum of $800 Can. I should be able to sell the 100-300mm for close to what I paid for it.

Dan

[PixCasey]

then keep the wife and the 1-3 and you'll at least have some sanity!

[mikesd]

My thaught was to get the 70-200mm f/4 next year and then sell
the 100-300mm lense. My problem is that since Jan. I baught 2 cameras and 3 lenses
and I am capped. ( keep wife happy..very important )
The 100-300mm cost me less than $300 Can but the 70-200mm f/4 is going to cost a minimum and I mean minimum of $800 Can. I should be able to sell the 100-300mm for close to what I paid for it.

Dan


Just about any Canon lenses hold their value very well on the used market, so buying one today that I may or may not be happy with is not a problem for me as I know I can resell it fairly easy either here or at FM.

[mdr]

Check out my other post for some sample pics of the 70-200mm f4 L with 1.4x Mk I TC: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71569

[cfcRebel]

You guys are right. The resale value for 100-300 is quite good. I bought mine used, so if I sell it, I won't lose that much. But that also means the cost of a new 70-200 f4L is 3 times of what I paid for the 100-300. So in my case, it won't work. Selling the 100-300 but the money is not even half way there(70-200). ;)

[mdr]

Why buy new? I picked up a mint 70-200mm f4 L second hand for £300 and sold my 100-300mm USM for £190 on eBay.

[cfcRebel]

OMG! 100-300mm USM for £190 on eBay? :shock: You are very lucky. I got mine US$172 shipped on eBay. :D