Persian-Rice Goldmember 1,531 posts Likes: 14 Joined Apr 2004 Location: Behind a viewfinder. More info | May 20, 2005 22:57 | #16 I keep following up on Phil's posts haha. The size isnt really the killer its that the thing is bloody heavy when compared. The 2X extender can get ugly. But here is a comparison just for you.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MarkH Senior Member  431 posts Joined Jun 2003 Location: New Zealand More info | One point not yet mentioned on this thread is that the Canon 20D has a high precision mode on the centre AF point, which is only available with a lens that is f2.8 or better. SLR cameras focus using max aperture which gives more light and greater AF accuracy, even if you set the camera to close the aperture down to f11 for the actual photo, you still get the faster & more accurate AF on the f2.8 lenses. Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
grego Cream of the Crop  8,819 posts Likes: 2 Joined May 2005 Location: UCLA More info | Persian-Rice wrote: Ok, no the AF on the 2.8 are all the same, they seem more crisp then the f/4 but even then it's too close to call. I would say all the 70-200 lenses have the same AF. They are all faster then the 100-400. I dont think that they are much faster but the 100-400 seems to hunt more then the 70-200, thats the differnce. IS corrects hand shake and suttle movements, but when you have a subject moving fast, it's not what IS is intended for and will have no effect. IS is there to stabalize you. A great example could be tennis. On a serve the racket moves at an extreme rate, IS will not freeze the action, that's a job for the shutter. I would also say yes, the 70-200 is sharper, how much is arguable, but to be honest, when you get into that range of quality, the differnce is so minimal that there is no point saying one is better because both are more then good enough and will never be an issue. It does help in low light situations though and I have covered sporting events in the lower light situation and other events that do involve movement. Those extra stops come in handy in the low light situations, and its especially useful if you can't use a monopod in a certain situation. Go UCLA
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RbrtPtikLeoSeny THREAD STARTER My love, my baby 2,482 posts Likes: 1 Joined Apr 2005 Location: Mont Vernon, NH More info | May 21, 2005 07:31 | #19 Huh, woah, the 70-200mm IS sounds pretty awesome! And thanks for all the visual comparisons, that really helps. I'm almost convinced to save up for the 70-200 instead of the 100-400L.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
grego Cream of the Crop 8,819 posts Likes: 2 Joined May 2005 Location: UCLA More info | RbrtPtikLeoSeny wrote: Prolly can't afford the IS though. So, is the non IS 70-200 close enough in quality to the IS version? Then I'd just get a 1.4x t-con since the 2x seems to degrade quality so much. Same price as the 100-400L  Thanks so much everyone for all the help too! This is fantatic stuff. Yes, the non-IS is still good quality and you'd want to have that. Here's some prices from PriceGrabber.com Go UCLA
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RbrtPtikLeoSeny THREAD STARTER My love, my baby 2,482 posts Likes: 1 Joined Apr 2005 Location: Mont Vernon, NH More info | May 21, 2005 12:51 | #21 Nice! Thanks! That's pretty cheap. So expensive though! Don't think I need AF that fast anyway.... I think the AF on the 70-200 f/4 is fast. If the 100-400L is that fast than I certainly don't need anymore.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CyberDyneSystems Admin (type T-2000)  More info | May 21, 2005 21:30 | #22 Just an additional FYI... GEAR LIST
LOG IN TO REPLY |
xuxu1 Goldmember  1,202 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jul 2003 More info | WepWaWep wrote: Well for me, I hope to add the EF 70-200 f/2.8 for its range to cover the gaps I have in my lenses before I start to look at some of the primes. What a great people lens, especially for indoor shots, blending into the background and letting people be themselves. The EF 100-400 L is the lens I use for it's reach when in the field. Wildlife addiction, what can I say? yup.... same here... except i´m not hoping 50D + BG-E2N | 10D + BG-ED3 | Powershot G5 | EF 17-40 f/4 L | EF 24-105 f/4 L IS | EF 70-200 f/4 L IS | EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 100 f/2.8 Macro USM | Speedlite 580EX II | Speedlite 380EX
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gmaize wrote: I am forever trying to remember which lenses maintain their AF capability when used with the Tcons. Can you point me to a place that can compreshensively explain which of Canons lenses can use Tcons, including a yes/no answer to the AF or MF with the specific lens/tcon combo. Hope I am making some sense here. Thanks in advance, --gmaize
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RbrtPtikLeoSeny THREAD STARTER My love, my baby 2,482 posts Likes: 1 Joined Apr 2005 Location: Mont Vernon, NH More info | May 22, 2005 11:14 | #25 Ok, so I've read that this lens is fantastic for low light conditions not just because of it's f/2.8 apeture, but because of it's advanced IS. It's said that at 200mm on a 1.6x body like the 20D, you can shoot at 1/30th shutter speed hand held and still get sharp images because the IS is THAT affective. Is this true? Or, a slight stretch of the truth?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
karusel Goldmember  1,452 posts Joined Nov 2003 Location: Location: Location: More info | May 22, 2005 11:44 | #26 If I wanted anything longer than 200mm I'd get a 300 f/4L IS, since it's pretty much within reach. Oh and, much sharper than 100-400L IS. I think even with a 1.4x TC. If money was no object, the 400 f/2.8L would be the answer. Then again, it depends on what you really need the tele for... I'm not doing much birding and for most of the time, not much sports either, so I'll see how I'll cope with just 135mm. 5D and holy trinity of primes. Now the 90mm TS-E TS-E fly bit me. I hate these forums.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
grego Cream of the Crop 8,819 posts Likes: 2 Joined May 2005 Location: UCLA More info | May 22, 2005 15:49 | #27 With a reasonable amount of money, you get the f/2.8 200 and add a teleconverter. With 2x you get 400mm for under 2 grand and the IS. And then take in the conversion factor. Go UCLA
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SkipD Cream of the Crop  20,476 posts Likes: 165 Joined Dec 2002 Location: Southeastern WI, USA More info | RbrtPtikLeoSeny wrote: Ok, so I've read that this lens is fantastic for low light conditions not just because of it's f/2.8 apeture, but because of it's advanced IS. It's said that at 200mm on a 1.6x body like the 20D, you can shoot at 1/30th shutter speed hand held and still get sharp images because the IS is THAT affective. Is this true? Or, a slight stretch of the truth? I have used my 70-200 f2.8 IS (zoomed out to 200mm) at 1/30th second shutter speed, handheld, and gotten very acceptable results. Now, I must admit that I can hold a heavy lens reasonably steady even without IS, but I'd have to use at least 1/150th second without IS to get the same sharpness. Skip Douglas
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gmaize Senior Member 589 posts Joined Jan 2005 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii More info | MetalTom wrote: Everything you ever wanted to know about Tcon compatability and weren't afraid to ask. http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/pdf/spec.pdf  Thomas, --gmaize
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RbrtPtikLeoSeny THREAD STARTER My love, my baby 2,482 posts Likes: 1 Joined Apr 2005 Location: Mont Vernon, NH More info | May 24, 2005 19:48 | #30 Huh, 70-200mm IS with a 2x t-con. I really do LOVE that idea, but that'd degrade the heck out of the image quality, and considerably slow down the AF wouldn't it?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Thunderstream 1872 guests, 109 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
i´m going to get it! 
