L lens decision

ive got the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM now...

i need a BIT more reach (even with my 7d crop*) so im considering adding either the 1.4 EX II or a 70-300 f4-5.6L

does the 1.4 drops 1 or 1-1/2 stops?

with the converter id now have a 98-280 f4 (or f5?) but how much IQ would i lose by adding elements?

id THINK the 98mm on the short end might be TOO MUCH length but if its at least close in quality it would certainly be cheaper that way then to add another lens...

*i am aware of the 1.6 magnification 'factor' with the crop sensor but using the 'listed' focal lengths help me keep it simple...

what are you shooting that you need more reach?

the 1.4TC will cost you just 1 stop of light(a 2X costs you 2stops)...so it'd be like an f4 lens...IQ will depend on which TC you go for

I'v a Canon 70-200 f/4L (non IS) with a Canon 1.4 TCII (f/5.6) paired with a 60D before. I'v taken some decent shots with not much effect on IQ. You have a 2.8 which I think is a sharper lens. I don't think it would affect IQ that much unless you're really a "pixel peeper". Here's a sample shot with a 70-200 f/4 with a TC 1.4II......

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/47043836@N05/7​110493201/

I just got the 70-300L, and I am very, very happy with it. It is also much smaller and lighter than the 70-200

Why not go with a longer prime since you already own a good zoom. I own the 400 5.6L and think its a hell of a lens for the money.

If you just need a BIT more range, then just go for the 1.4 TC. You only get saddled with a 98mm wide end, when the TC is attached( presumably when you really need length, not width). 280 f/4 will be just fine, IQ wise.

mileslong24 wrote in post #14742233
Why not go with a longer prime since you already own a good zoom. I own the 400 5.6L and think its a hell of a lens for the money.

This is a good suggestion, but another idea is the 300mm f4 with IS. Great, sharp easy to hold lens with a nice fast f4.

The 1.4x TC should be fine for you. It only adds one stop. The 300mm f/4L IS is a fantastic lens, but is it worth adding to your line up cost wise? It has been said that you should always buy a lens with a native focal length rather than using a TC to extend the reach of a lens if you can afford it. The native FL lens will almost always have better image quality than an extended lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8L is one of the exceptions. It takes a 1.4X TC very very well. Mine even takes the 2xIII so well that only wide open at f/5.6 will you see some quality loss.

How about a 100-400L on top of your 70-200L?

545iBMW wrote in post #14742941
How about a 100-400L on top of your 70-200L?

Best solution, IMO.

i got both, 1.4x and 300 f4. i was eyeing the 400 until i just dumped a bunch of cash on some nikon gear.

100-400 much better.

Id LOVE to go all primes but im trying to get back into sports shooting and with only one body, pretty much need a zoom...

Ill look and see what I can come up with 100-400 wise...

Thanks

nightcat wrote in post #14742751
This is a good suggestion, but another idea is the 300mm f4 with IS. Great, sharp easy to hold lens with a nice fast f4.

^^^this

thinkgear wrote in post #14743127
100-400 much better.

Than what??