Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 08 Nov 2009 (Sunday) 19:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

100-400 vs. 70-200 2.8 plus 2x

 
mn ­ shutterbug
Goldmember
Avatar
1,029 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 778
Joined Apr 2008
Location: SW Minnesota
     
Nov 08, 2009 19:51 |  #1

I love my 100-400 but am considering shooting sports someday. I understand that the 70-200 2.8 is the industry favorite for sports shooting. However, I need the 400mm for my avian photography. Would the 70-200 2.8 with a 2X converter be just as sharp as the 100-400? There isn't a ton of difference in cost.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Yossarian22
Member
Avatar
56 posts
Joined Jul 2008
     
Nov 08, 2009 19:56 |  #2

No it won't




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fedxpress
Senior Member
649 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
     
Nov 08, 2009 19:57 |  #3

Nope!!!
I just spent the weekend shooting Soccer with the 100-400 and 100-400 and a 1.4. The 70-200 is too short for most of the shooting on a full size field. I don't think you will be happy with a 2X on the lens either. The 100-400 is a great sports lens if you have the light.
What kind of sports are you going to be shooting?

IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE


IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Fedxpress

1D Mark III, XTi, 16-35 f2.8L ,24-105 F4.0Lis, 28-135 3.5 is, 50 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8IIL is,100-400, Kenko Pro300, 430EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SuzyView
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
32,094 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 129
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Northern VA
     
Nov 08, 2009 19:57 |  #4

I have both lenses and the TC. The 100-400 is better than the 70-200 2.8 IS with the TC. But if I had to only get one or the other, I'd get the 70-200 2.8 IS :) The 100-400 is not nearly as fast or as sharp.


Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
RF6 Mii, 5DIV, SONY a7iii, 7D2, G12, 6 L's & 2 Primes, 25 bags.
My children and grandchildren are the reason, but it's the passion that drives me to get the perfect image of everything.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mn ­ shutterbug
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,029 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 778
Joined Apr 2008
Location: SW Minnesota
     
Nov 08, 2009 20:08 |  #5

I was considering the 70-200 for basketball and volleyball. The way it sounds, I'd better hang onto my 100-400 and wait until I have the ching for the other, or opt for the 70-200 f4 and hope for the best.

As far as the 100-400 not being as sharp, I'm extremely happy with the sharpness of mine. This was shot with the 50D.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kevin ­ B
Senior Member
292 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 73
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Albuquerque, NM
     
Nov 08, 2009 20:32 as a reply to  @ mn shutterbug's post |  #6

I considered the same options before I bought the 100-400. I really cared most about performance at 400mm and this comparison shows the 100-400 as a better choice at 400mm:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/400v400.shtml (external link)

I've been very happy the 100-400. I was concerned with the push/pull design but I have found it wasn't a problem. In fact, it's very nice for use 100mm to get the subject framed (e.g., a bird in flight) and then zoom to 400mm to track them and take the photograph.


GEAR: 5D Mark III, 7D, 24-105L, 16-35 F/4L, 50 f/1.4, 100-400L II, 100 f/2.8 macro, Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, 1.4X III, Sigma 14mm F/1.8 Art

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fedxpress
Senior Member
649 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
     
Nov 08, 2009 20:46 |  #7

Not sure the 70-200 would be fast enough for Basketball and Volleyball. I would think you need 1.8 or so. The 70-200 will be to long for basketball if your on the floor.
Good Luck
Fedxpress


1D Mark III, XTi, 16-35 f2.8L ,24-105 F4.0Lis, 28-135 3.5 is, 50 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8IIL is,100-400, Kenko Pro300, 430EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

1,561 views & 0 likes for this thread, 5 members have posted to it.
100-400 vs. 70-200 2.8 plus 2x
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is semonsters
1503 guests, 131 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.