Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Advice needed: Canon 70-200L/2.8 IS + 2x Extender OR 100-400L/4.5-5.6 IS ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Advice needed: Canon 70-200L/2.8 IS + 2x Extender OR 100-400L/4.5-5.6 IS ?

 
 
Aaaardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2004
Hi all,

I'm struggling with these 2 options(Canon 70-200L/2.8 IS + 2x
Extender vs 100-400L/4.5-5.6 IS ), and would like to know your
opinions. The 70-200 would give me the flexibility of the 2.8
big aperture, while adding the 2x extender gives me the same
reach as the 100-400.

I kinda like the fact that the 70-200 is a 2 touch design vs the
1 touch pull-push design of the 100-400, and having the 70-200 +
extender would be like having 2 lenses ( 70-200/2.8 and
140-400/5.6 ). I currently have an old 80-200L/2.8 which I could
sell off if I got the 70-200.

I've read the image quality of the 70-200 is top notch, while
the 100-400 is not quite as good (but still very good for a 4x
zoom). However, will the 2x extender reduce the image quality of
the 70-200 significantly ? Enough to make it worse than the
100-400 at 400mm ?

Both have IS so will be great at longer focal lengths.I'm buying
them for some wildlife photography on my 300D, so the effective
640mm on either lens would be very useful. Any advice/comments
would be greatly appreciated. Assume that price of both are not
a concern.

Thanks.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2004
>From: "Aaaardvark"

>I've read the image quality of the 70-200 is top notch, while
>the 100-400 is not quite as good (but still very good for a 4x
>zoom). However, will the 2x extender reduce the image quality of
>the 70-200 significantly ?


Yes.

>Enough to make it worse than the 100-400 at 400mm ?


Yes. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml ... the
100-400 wins this test, and I think most people who've tried this test
themselves would agree.

>I'm struggling with these 2 options(Canon 70-200L/2.8 IS + 2x
>Extender vs 100-400L/4.5-5.6 IS ), and would like to know your
>opinions.


I have the older non-IS 70-200 f/2.8L and also the 100-400 L IS ... I got the
100-400 mainly for Alaska where you're shooting from planes or boats or viewing
platforms or, in Denali, shuttle busses but in general I prefer the optics of
the 70-200 w/o a t/c or with the 1.4x t/c. With the 2x t/c I agree with
Reichmann, the 100-400 is better (but nothing to write home about).

I also have a 500 f/4 L IS and increasingly I'm taking the 500 and the 70-200,
even to Alaska (where I'm headed in a couple of weeks), and leaving the 100-400
behind, but since it will be your longest lens I'd probably advise you to get
the 100-400.

Bill


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Recer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2004
>From: "Aaaardvark" http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)_TO_REPLY.com
>Date: 1/24/2004 11:45 AM Central Standard Time


>I'm struggling with these 2 options(Canon 70-200L/2.8 IS + 2x
>Extender vs 100-400L/4.5-5.6 IS ), and would like to know your
>opinions.


You will find a lot of discussion on this topic at the following:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1029

Most seem to think the 100-400 is better than the 70-200 + 2x.

Ron
 
Reply With Quote
 
PlaneGuy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2004
What you will also find from that forum, is that the 80-200/2.8 is a lusted
after lens. After Adam-T started calling it the magic drainpipe, the
consensus is that it may be sharper than the 70-200 2.8 (both versions), and
so the only reason to swap it would be for IS.

Personally, I have a 70-200 2.8 (non IS) because I really needed the 2.8
aperture. If I would have been happy with the f4 (which I was till my gf
wanted to play indoor sport), I probably would have gone the 100-400 route
instead of the 2.8 + TCs.

I have both TCs, and find that with the 1.4, I can get acceptable wide open,
that returns to great once I am past about f5.6 or so. With the 2x, I try to
avoid shooting at f5.6 if at all possible. The sharpness drops
significantly, so wide open, is not that great. Certainly, shots I have seen
from the 100-400 wide open beat the 2x. From around f8, it is acceptable,
and probably back to very good at f10.

If I were you, I would make a decision as to whether you really need f2.8. I
do and so have no choice. However, it seems like you intend to mainly do
wildlife stuff, where you would be at the long end mainly. Can you live with
5.6?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Henrik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2004
I have both and they both have their place - the 70-200LIS is one of my fav.
lenses but the 100-400 is easy to carry around, in one word convient. having
said that, it is a sunny day lens, not much good in low light.

So I guess it comes down to when and what you shoot, the other alternative
is the 400mm f/5.6L if you really need 400mm and the older 80-200 f/2.8 if
you wanted to save a few bucks.

I hope I haven't confused you any more

best regards and enjoy taking photos

Henrik

"Aaaardvark" <(E-Mail Removed)_TO_REPLY.com> wrote in message
news:4012af3c$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi all,
>
> I'm struggling with these 2 options(Canon 70-200L/2.8 IS + 2x
> Extender vs 100-400L/4.5-5.6 IS ), and would like to know your
> opinions. The 70-200 would give me the flexibility of the 2.8
> big aperture, while adding the 2x extender gives me the same
> reach as the 100-400.
>
> I kinda like the fact that the 70-200 is a 2 touch design vs the
> 1 touch pull-push design of the 100-400, and having the 70-200 +
> extender would be like having 2 lenses ( 70-200/2.8 and
> 140-400/5.6 ). I currently have an old 80-200L/2.8 which I could
> sell off if I got the 70-200.
>
> I've read the image quality of the 70-200 is top notch, while
> the 100-400 is not quite as good (but still very good for a 4x
> zoom). However, will the 2x extender reduce the image quality of
> the 70-200 significantly ? Enough to make it worse than the
> 100-400 at 400mm ?
>
> Both have IS so will be great at longer focal lengths.I'm buying
> them for some wildlife photography on my 300D, so the effective
> 640mm on either lens would be very useful. Any advice/comments
> would be greatly appreciated. Assume that price of both are not
> a concern.
>
> Thanks.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Canon Extender 2X II, New in Box GassMan Digital Photography 0 06-08-2008 02:35 AM
Using Canon X2 Extender With 300mm 2.8 Gino Digital Photography 4 07-18-2007 11:57 PM
Canon 1.4X extender query Paul Burdett Digital Photography 5 07-12-2006 07:57 AM
Canon 70-200mm F2.8 With 1.4 Extender Russell Digital Photography 7 05-13-2005 12:23 AM
Canon 1.4 EF extender emski Digital Photography 8 03-05-2005 04:14 PM



Advertisments