L lens decision

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

Then what ?
I persanally do not find the 100-400 better then the 70-200 II & extender III 2x.

Ltdave wrote in post #14741804
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...

I agree with the others, try it with a 1.4 extender but a "BIT more reach" could mean buying another lens

28-300 L

I have and use the 300/4 IS (and 300/2.8 IS, 500/4 IS).... I use it with and without EF 1.4X II. My only complaint about the 300/4 is that it doesn't have as nice bokeh as some of the other lenses... But that really only shows up when there's a busy background, particularly one with highlights, that's not possible to blur down as strongly as I'd like. Some note too, that the 300/4 tends to have a little purple fringing in sharp highlights. That's true, but it's also very easily fixed, if one finds it objectionable.

But the 70-200/2.8 IS with 1.4X is an good alternative, works very nicely with the 1.4X II or III, or the Kenko Pro 300 DG or DGX 1.4X too (the newer DGX supposedly improves focus speed over the earlier Kenko model). I will not use my 70-200/2.8 with a 2X... but have just seen some images made with it and the newer EF 2X Mark III that look pretty darned good.

Alternatives do include the Canon 100-400. Decent lens, a wee bit soft out at 400mm, but most of these wide range zooms are. I don't care for the push/pull zoom design... some people love it, though. It's fast, but I have trouble getting a steady shot with that type of zoom. (This lens has IS though, which should help).

There are also the Sigma 120-400 OS and 150-500 OS. Both are immensely less expensive than the Canon 100-400, as well as being the more traditional two ring (focus and zoom separate) design. The 150-500 is pretty large and a bit heavy... but, hey, there's no such thing as too much focal length! (Though it's smaller, lighter than the Siggy 50-500, which is affectionately known as the "Bigma").

I've been tempted to try one of those two Sigmas myself... there are times when light is good and a zoom would be handy. Also would be good for travel, when the primes and/or a tripod are a bit much. I'd probably go with the 120-400, since I often have to handhold all day long. Or maybe I'll just hold out for the EF 200-400/4L IS 1.4X Extender! I wish Canon would stop talkin' about it and start deliverin' it! No price announced yet either, but I bet I need to save up a few more pennies!

The main thing I've noticed is that the two Sigma lenses seem to give a bit less contrast/saturation than the Canon.... of course, for the large part that's pretty easily fixed in post production.

If you get any of these lenses, don't put a "protection" filter on them. They really don't like filters and their lens hoods are quite deep, should give plenty of protection.