A little help needed!

Hi All

I read lots about the use of TC's and the effect it has on image quality. I need a longer lens for wildlife photography as currently my 70-200 f4 L IS is as long as I can go. I realise that I do gain a bit from my crop sensor 60d.

I don't want this to sound like another 'which lens should I buy post' as I tend to read up plenty and in some cases try out a lens before I buy. My problem here is I have a few options and they a all very different.

Option 1:
Get one new lens a 300mm f4 L IS, this is the Prime option!

Option 2:
Get one new lens a 100-400 L, this is the long zoom option I'm worried it won't be a sharp as the prime or my f4 L.

Option 3:
Sell my 70-200 f4 L IS and buy a 70-200 f2.8 L IS Mk II and buy a 1.4 TC to get the extra reach, this gives me the fast 70-200 and the reach when I need it. I'm worried that images quality might suffer with the TC.

What would you do, I only really photograph wildlife so sharp images matter to me.

Thanks,

Dave

I fear the MK2 IS + 1.4 will not give you the reach that you're looking for. 300 + TC or 100-400 would be my pick. The MK2 IS already has such amazing IQ that the TC won't hurt it enough to be a no no.

Have you considered a 400mm? But like I said, I'd probably go for the 300 + the TC.

Hi, I thanks for the advice. I guess that lack of IS pup me off with the Canon 400 L.

Depending on the wildlife you want to shoot, lack of IS on the 400mm may not be a problem. For example, I shoot birds with one, where you normally want a high shutter speed. It's a terrific lens for this.

One thing I'd be concerned about with using a TC, as much or more than image quality, is what effect it has on the accuracy and speed of the AF.

That makes sense (about the TC), that I hadn't considered. And yes, the IS is up to you. I'd probably go for one with IS, but that's me.

I hadn't considered how the TC would effect AF, lots to consider.

i've got the 70-200 2.8II and 300, there is a difference in reach between them but it's often not enough.
I'm looking at the 400 5.6, images I see shot with it are very good. I have put my 1.4x on both my long lenses, works pretty well. I tried a 100-400 once, the push/pull thing wasn't my cup of tea.

I have read that some people really get on with the 100-400L others not so much. It is defiantly the most versatile option. A 400 on a 60D would cover most wildlife scenarios.

I'm not sure if you have seen this thread, but it should help you out some, I hope.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1160838

Randy