|
definitely go for the 70-200mm you can't go wrong. it has done me wonders and I love it more and more. The quality of it is pretty amazine.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The 100-400L is a nice lens, the 70-200 is a great lens.
2.8 and IS.....you cant beat it.
I'd stick with the 1.4xii though, the 2x is notoriously soft.
Originally posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
Schoolbookdepository edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
|
This is with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the 2X converter:
Darned sharp, I say.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thank you gerardisgejay, schoolbookdepository & Geren W. Mortensen, Jr.
As I will also be using this for Wildlife/Bird photography as well (40-50% of the time), do you guys think lens range (70-200/2.8L IS with 1.4x) is a trade off for the quality i get with it?
I wish, I can procure both lens but my pockets are not so deep at present!!! :(
Appreciate your feedback...
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I LOVE my 70-200/2.8L IS and would highly recommend it. The 2x extender is soft and I really wish I would have bought the 1.4x instead. I can't attest to the 100-400, but the 70-200 is one of the most sought after lenses for good reason. If you don't own one, you should! :)
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I just got my rental from FEDEX...unfortunately i have to give it back in 2 weeks---but between now and then I plan on really testing ti's limits to see if it is what i need. ... . low light, image quailty, I then may rent the f4 lens for a weekend to see if it would work fine...initial thoughts out of package----WOOOOOAH! HEAVY! following by DAAAAAAAAAMN! THAT LOOKS BITCHIN! AHAH...
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Definitely 70-200....Why? Because of the F2.8 of course....100-400 extend very long when u are zooming & its not weather sealed. BTW, 70-200 has better resale value also :)
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
So with my camera (Canon 20D) it has a magnification factor of 1.6x. So I am assuming I do the following:
200mm (lens max length) x 1.6 (sensor factor) x 1.4 (extender) = 448mm
Is this correct? I also am considering the 70-200mm lens with an extender. I think 448mm is enough for most wildlife. 2x extender would only be needed in extreme cases like perhaps portrait shot of a bird.
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I had the same question about 8 months ago. I wanted the 70-200 for telephoto landscapes and portraits, and also wanted a good wilflife lens. Ignoring your sensor crop factor, the 2x extender gives you a max of 400mm with the 70-200L IS f/2.8 (35mm equivalent with your 30D is 448mm). With wildlife, I sometimes often wish for more than this! However, here's some shots I took with the 70-200L IS f/2.8 with the 2x extender. Instantly you can see that the softness of this extender is often over exagerated, and I think only really noticeable if you're a pixel peeper. People say to crop shots taken with the 1.4x extender and upres a little in photoshop- but this just results in introduction of noise and softness. If you need millimetres, go for the 2x- especially if you want to photograph smaller wild birds. If you're after shooting bigger animals (e.g. Lions, cows, elephants(!)), get the 1.4x.
In terms of the 100-400L IS f/4 lens. Just get the 70-200 and extender. The other day, I was photographing in a zoo, and a kind gentleman allowed temporarily swapped my 30D with the 70-200L IS f/2.8 & 2x extender for his 1D MkIII and 100-400L IS & 1.4x extender (by the way, this combination WILL NOT autofocus on the 30D). The photos with the 30D were better-in terms of both bokeh and sharpness. In terms of operation, I found the push pull zoom of the 100-400 a nightmare, and the tighten/loosen operation was equally horrid- essentially, this is an old design, really made for the days of film. The 1D MkIII on the other hand is incredible. I want one of those. There is also a lot of talk of lens to lens variation in terms of sharpness. This said, the 100-400 is not at all bad- only when you compare it to superior glass.
Sorry for the waffle, but hope this is useful to you.
Originally posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
Jon & Catherine Stead edited this topic 56 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for your feed back Jon Stead. This has truly helped me in deciding what to buy... You are right, having 2.8 with an extender will serve both purpose of mine! Thanks once again.
Thanks John for your feedback.
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Taken with a 2x extender II on a 70-200L IS f.2.8 with a Rebel XTi. Handheld while sitting in my backyard. Doesn't look soft to me!
Mel
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Taken with a 2x extender II on a 70-200L IS f.2.8 with a 5D Handheld while sitting in my backyard. Also doesn't look soft to me!
Mel
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm so pleased to find this thread as I have the 70-200 and am considering the 1.4 or the 2x extender - this has helped a lot!
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
^ yah i'm thinking of getting one too...but I'm sure I won't be using it much.... it might be purchased at the end of the year.....Christmas present anyone?????
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I am sure this chain will be useful for all wildlife photographers... long live "Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L (IS) USM". It is good to keep this chain getting more users feedback which will help many. I sure to have benefited from this. Thanks again to all.
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Add me to the list of those learning from the thread/examples (lovely by the way). I just joined this flickr group. I picked up my lens just the other day, and I love it. Now, after reading this thread, I want to get an extender too!
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I just ordered mine, should get it tuesday and am VERY excited, I'm like a kid at Christmas!! I love the reach of my 100-400 and am very happy with my images
I have a dilemma, I love my 100-400 and it would hurt me to part with it but financially, would it be worth me keeping it or should ebay get it? A 2x converter would give me the same reach and same max aperture so what should I do??? Help please!!!!!
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My two cents... How about shooting around 70mm? I have a 70-200 f2.8L IS and am also looking into an extender. Recently I've been shooting around the 70 to 100mm mark. Granted you may say to just move back but... with some foreground interest I was trying to get I couldn't (plus my back was already against the wall of a building). Love my 70-200.
Granted your 24-105 can also do that range but to shoot it at f2.8 is a very nice option.
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i would warn that, at least in the case of my lens, its already a bit soft at f/2.8 and so when you add in the 2x tele-extender, the sharpness is decreased even more. and then with the lens wide open, you are only at f/5.6. in my experiments i had to be at f/7.1 or f/9 before the sharpness improved.
not to mention that i already have a touch of CA at f/2.8 without the extender; with the extender at f/5.6 the CA is pretty bad.
now, there might be something wrong with my lens, but that's for another topic. in my case i'm using a 1st generation 2x extender that may have been abused a little.
i'd guess that the 1.4x is a better match... hopefully.
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I debated the same thing while shopping for a new lens. I went with the 70-200 with 2x. I wanted the extension, but also wanted the 2.8 IS for sports photography in low light. Received my new lens this weekend and went moose hunting. I love it.
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just an addition to my previous two cents in this thread. I should be more specific and say the 2x extender used was the new generation EF2xII extender- sorry if I've caused any confusion. I'm pretty sure this version is much better than its predecessor.
Originally posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
Jon & Catherine Stead edited this topic 56 months ago.
|
|
i'd say from over a mile away, this combination has never let me down here in Vegas!
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I had a 100-400, and traded it in for a 70-200 2.8 IS + 1.4xII & 2x.II I got $1,000 for the trade in. I found the 100-400 to be just awesome. I liked the push pull action. At 400 it did feel a bit fragile, but the versatility was phenominal. That said, the 70-200 can so many things not possible with the 100-400. At 400 (with the tc) the lenses produce virturally identical images. But without the tc, the 70-200 may well be the best glass available at any price. It matches perfectly with a 24-70 2.8 for reach coverage. If you like to shoot fast action or in low light, the decision should be simple. The 100-400 will leave you wishing you went the other (albeit more expensive) way
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Actually the canon 300 mm f2.8 L IS USM is better glass than the 70-200 mm. But that's for another show. I don't own one (I dare say yet) but I have a friend who owns one. He also owns the 100-400 mm as well as the 70 -200 mm. He has said on many occasions that the 70 -200 mm+ tc combination is much better than the 100-400 mm alone.
In any case I should be getting my 70 -200 mm this weekend and I'm looking forward to making much use of it.
I also plan to get a tc. I was wondering whether I should purchase both the 1.4x and 2x TCs. I am not gonna do it soon though, unless I run into some money. Just spent all my photography though on the 70 -200 mm. when i get it I will let you know whether it was worth it. But as it stands now I have no doubts about that.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have the 70-200 F2.8 L IS, and the 1.4x and 2x converters. The former being used more often for Lacrosse, and the latter only being used for photographing cricket, so far. There is a little softness but @ 200mm x 2 x 1.6 on a 40D I'm getting high-quality at 640mm EFL.
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
TwentyTrees edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
I have been thinking of using this setup for shooting cricket as well. I live in Saint Lucia and our government built a new cricket stadium which was actually used for the last cricket world cup. I am trying to get press credentials so that I can get to photograph the games when they are here next. I will post some of the pics. I should have my lens soon but the teleconverters will have to come later.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for me.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
70-200 2.8 IS is excellent ( have a look at my picture called "becasseaux de sanderling")
I bought the 2X extender and i dont like it... too dark and only 5.6...
i'm gonna buy the 100-400 instead
if you can buy only one so you wont have any regret with the 70-200 2.8!
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
hmmm....Dug are you talking about the view finder being too dark or the image? Cause if it's the image then I don't think the issue is the 2x TC but rather your exposure. If you are talking about the viewfinder then I can't see why there should be any difference between this setup and the 100 - 400 mm which are both at 5.6. You should probably save up for a 300 2.8L IS instead.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
70-200 IS all the way, I have the 2X and you can really notice some degrading only if you pixel peep, I think it works great!
I am on a 5D by the way, I'm sure the sensor on the 40D is alot less forgiving...
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
Astragony edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
Here is one for you with the 70-200mm w/ 2x...Look at his glasses and the reflection!
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If your only interest is long and you don't want to spend a lot of money, your best bet is either the 400mm f5.6L or the 300mm f4L IS and a 1.4x. If you also want a mid-to long zoom and only have occasional forays into the long end, get the 70-200mm f2.8 IS and both extenders.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Don't forget that when using 1.4x extender you loose one stop so even though the lens is 2.8 it won't be with the extender on! You loose two stops when you use 2x extender.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thank you ALL for your input - I was also torn with the debate between the 100-400mm and 70-200 F/2.8 IS w/ TC. I dont think this was mentioned, but I believe the 70-200 has a better image stabilization system as well (3 stop over the 400's 2 stop). I have settled - it is a 70-200 IS for me!
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have both ... I was lucky enough to be able to get both the 70-200 f2.8 L IS and the 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS. I also shoot with a 20D and a 30D. Lastly I have the 1.4x extender and I've got a couple of thoughts here.
They are VERY different lenses. The 70-200 is as every states superb, from the L's build quality to the focal length, sharpness and overall experience it's superb. It does however frequently come up short in wildlife shots (thus the extender). The 100-400 is long, my favorite lens to reach out and touch someone. If you shoot wildlife, birds or outdoor sports, you will truly appreciate this lens. It does however have it's drawbacks, it's not very fast, it focus hunts, and you can't put an extender on it with anything but a 1 series body.
All that being said, do what I always say and RENT BEFORE YOU BUY, I did and it paid off big time.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
glad to have found this topic as I was thinking about a longer lens but the idea of anything heavier than my 70-200 f2.8 L IS in my bag was a nonstarter as there's already three primes and a 24-105 f4 L IS along with flash etc. An extender seems like a good compromise but it will be either the 1.4 or the 2, maybe even both if finances allow
ps, the 70-200 f2.8 L IS is one of the most fun things I've ever bought, have had over a year of good times together and if anyone's thinking about it go for it, you will not regret it
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wow... now I'm frustrated. I have both the 2x and 1.4x. Everything I shoot with my 2x is soft. I clearly have a bad copy. It's been sitting on a shelf unused because of this.
Does anyone know if these things can be serviced? Realigned or something?
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I heard the 100-400mm push pull zoom sucks in a litter of air. Wouldn’t that suck dust onto the censer?
I have the 2X converter for my 70-200mm/2.8 IS and it works great.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here is a recent moon shot with the 100-400mm and 2X. Straight from camera.
Please click to get to full size shot.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here is a moon shot with the 70-200mm +2x
100%Crop
Looks sharp to me.
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
T/A Barracus edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
here's a set done with the 1.4X II & 2X II stacked with the EF70-200 f/2.8L IS USM & EF200 f/2.0L IS USM.
www.flickr.com/photos/weddingmoments/sets/72157606770516184/
one has to remember that with multiple extenders, the AF will get worst/slower and get softer as shutter speed gets higher.
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
Benjamin Urbina edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
70-200 2.8 IS for me.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L (IS) USM /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L (IS) USM discussion threads