«

> embee wrote:
>
> I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN and my main lens is a 24-105mm L. I'm very happy
> with this setup for most of my work. When I need a longer focal length I
> currently rely on my 70-500mm Sigma, which has served me adequately in the
> past. However, I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
> (particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I would
> like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.
>
> I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or the EF
> 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
>
> I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I wondered if
> anybody here would be kind enough to share their experience of either/both
> of these lenses to help me evaluate my best option.

I have a 1D M II and have all three lenses you mention (24-105, 70-200
f/2.8 L IS, 100-400). Basically the 70-200 is optically superior to
the 100-400, no doubt about that. We rarely use the 100-400 because of
this since at f/5.6 and 400 mm it's just not a quality lens, though
with the 1.3x sensor you get rid of most of the corner problems at f/8.


However if you pop a 2x on the 70-200 then the image quality of this
setup is inferior to the 100-400 when shot at 400, to give you an idea
of how much you lose with the 2x.

On the other hand with the 1.4x on the 70-200 you still have pretty
high image quality, I've found.

So it boils down to how badly do you need to go over say 280 mm (which
is where you'll be with the 70-200 and the 1.4x).

If you can give up IS then a good solution at this same basic price
point is to get the 70-200 f/4 L and the 400 f/5.6 L. My wife has
these two lenses and does very well with them.

Or the 70-200 f/4 plus the 300 f/4 L IS if you need/want IS with a
longer lens, then with the 1.4x (which will give good results on both
of these lenses) you're covered from 70 mm to 420 mm.

Or if you can spend more get the new 70-200 f/4 L IS with even greater
IS sensitivity, according to Canon, and then one of the longer lenses
mentioned. But the f/4 IS is selling at a hefty premium over the
non-IS f/4 right now.

I'm probably not helping with your decision by mentioning these new
lenses, but any combination of these will give better image quality
than the 100-400.

Here's a site that compares the image quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
w/ 2x to the 100-400 ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml ...
elsewhere on this site there's a test of the 100-400 vs the 400 f/5.6 L
too. To sum up, the 100-400 at 400 beat the 70-200 w/2x combo but lost
to the straight 400 f/5.6 L ...

Bill

"Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>> embee wrote:
>>
>
> I have a 1D M II and have all three lenses you mention (24-105, 70-200
> f/2.8 L IS, 100-400). Basically the 70-200 is optically superior to
> the 100-400, no doubt about that. We rarely use the 100-400 because of
> this since at f/5.6 and 400 mm it's just not a quality lens, though
> with the 1.3x sensor you get rid of most of the corner problems at f/8.
>
>
> However if you pop a 2x on the 70-200 then the image quality of this
> setup is inferior to the 100-400 when shot at 400, to give you an idea
> of how much you lose with the 2x.
>
> On the other hand with the 1.4x on the 70-200 you still have pretty
> high image quality, I've found.
>
> So it boils down to how badly do you need to go over say 280 mm (which
> is where you'll be with the 70-200 and the 1.4x).
>
> If you can give up IS then a good solution at this same basic price
> point is to get the 70-200 f/4 L and the 400 f/5.6 L. My wife has
> these two lenses and does very well with them.
>
> Or the 70-200 f/4 plus the 300 f/4 L IS if you need/want IS with a
> longer lens, then with the 1.4x (which will give good results on both
> of these lenses) you're covered from 70 mm to 420 mm.
>
> Or if you can spend more get the new 70-200 f/4 L IS with even greater
> IS sensitivity, according to Canon, and then one of the longer lenses
> mentioned. But the f/4 IS is selling at a hefty premium over the
> non-IS f/4 right now.
>
> I'm probably not helping with your decision by mentioning these new
> lenses, but any combination of these will give better image quality
> than the 100-400.
>
> Here's a site that compares the image quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
> w/ 2x to the 100-400 ...
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml ...
> elsewhere on this site there's a test of the 100-400 vs the 400 f/5.6 L
> too. To sum up, the 100-400 at 400 beat the 70-200 w/2x combo but lost
> to the straight 400 f/5.6 L ...
>
> Bill
>

Thanks so much for this comprehensive post Bill, I haven't had time to
properly digest everything you've said but I'm sure that I will take good
account of your advice when I come to the final decision.

Thanks again - posts like this are what makes Usenet so great!

I agree with John. I use this combo myself and get on very well with it.

20D and 70-200 2.8IS with 1.4 extender suits me needs to a tee. Sometimes I
wish I had a 400 prime, but this is very rare for the shots I take.


"John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
news. ..
>
> Ed has a good point. I have the 70-200 IS lens, with a 1.4 extender. The
> 2x gets a bit soft, or did on my 20D. Haven't tried one (2x) with the 5D,
> but doubt I will, as the 20D is very active, and of course has the 1.6
> crop factor; I turned in the 2x and kept the 1.4x. I like the combos very
> much, btw.
>
> --
> John McWilliams

"embee" <> wrote in message
news:eh2uv7$p9q$...
>
> "Marten" <> wrote in message
> news:5S6Zg.27478$P7.7307@edtnps89...
>>
>
>>
>> The EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM is a fabulous lens for candid portrait work at
>> weddings and other gatherings. With f2.8 you can get beautiful bokeh.
>>
>>
> Thank you for that - do you have any experience of using it with a 2x
> converter? I must admit, this is the lens I would choose if it wasn't for
> the fact I sometimes need more reach.
>

There are comprimises to be made with any lens decision. I find with a 2x
extender the picture is a bit softer and the autofocus is too slow to track
kids running towards me in a soccer game. If they are moving across the
field in the same focal plane it is OK. Sometimes I wish I had the 100-400 L
lens. Most of the time I wish I had more money. Then the decisions become
easier.

Bill Hilton's post is excellent.

Marten

> Bill Hilton wrote:
>
> Here's a site that compares the image quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
> w/ 2x to the 100-400 ...
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml ...
> elsewhere on this site there's a test of the 100-400 vs the 400 f/5.6 L
> too.

Just to add on to my own post ... here are the links to further tests
of the 100-400 vs the 400 f/5.6 L ...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-400mm.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml

This is why I recommended the 70-200 f/4 plus either the fixed 300 IS
or 400 if you really need the extra reach and want the best optically
quality at this price point ...

What really bothers me personally about the 1-4 is the vignetting,
especially with the 1Ds (full frame). But you won't see that with the
1.6x bodies.

What I like about the 1-4 is the wide zoom range and IS, but before
almost every long trip to Alaska (which is the place I bought this lens
for) or Africa I find myself debating whether or not to take the
100-400 or the 70-200 and when I take the 1-4 I don't like the results
and when I don't I miss the versatility but seem to get better images.
Now I almost never take it.

One final comment on the 100-400 and push-pull zooms in general for
digital ... my wife just got a new Rebel XTi as a backup and I was
testing the dust removal functions. When using lenses with fixed rear
elements I didn't pick up extra dust beyond the 25 specks that were on
the sensor when I got the camera, but when I ran a test with the
100-400, zooming back and forth many times to blow air into the
chamber, I picked up ten new dust specks on the sensor.

So if you are shooting digital and bothered by sensor dust you'll
probably have more issues with the push-pull type zooms than with fixed
rear element lenses. All three of the 70-200 Canon zooms have fixed
rear elements, as do the fixed focal length lenses mentioned.

Bill

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:31:57 +0100, "embee" <>
wrote:

>I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN
<snip>
> I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
>(particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot). I would
>like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.

I shoot a 1DMII and occasionally borrow a 1DMIIn. My primary work is
action work (sport, horse events, etc.), and I also do a lot of
candids. You can see my work at: http://gallery.equinephotoart.com

>I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM,

I own this lens, and absolutely love it. This lens lives on my
camera, and occasionally I swap it with the 24-70 L (which I'm in the
process of buying) when I need a wider view. I don't know of anyone
who has anything bad to say about this lens except for the price
and/or weight, but since you are moving down from a BigMo the weight
shouldn't be an issue for you and IMHO there simply isn't a better
lens for the price. You DO get what you pay for with this lens.

>with a 2x extender or the EF
>100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

I have a friend who owns this lens and who loans it to me
occasionally. I really don't like using this lens. The zoom isn't
nearly as smooth, the lens isn't as fast, and I don't like how it's
not sealed (how dusty air can get sucked into the lens when zooming).
I also don't like the zoom adjustment setting (where the lens zooms
more freely, or not as freely, or you can lock the lens at one zoom).
When I have the option, I would only use this lens if I absolutely
needed greater range than can be had with my 70-200. (Sometimes I
didn't have the option, sometimes I needed 2 telephoto cameras working
at the same time so my 70-200 is on one body and the 100-400 on the
other body.) This lens is not one I'm considering purchasing.

My friend also loans me his 1.4x extender, which I use with my 70-200.
I also love that combo - the lens can't go below f4 with the 1.4
attached but the extended range with the 1.4 is very nice. I'm going
to rent a 2x and try that with my lens to compare, and then decide
which one to purchase.

At a local soccer match there was another pro photographer with 2
cameras going at once. He had the 70-200 with a 2x on one body, on a
strap around his neck, and a 600 on the other body mounted on a
monopod. He would twist the 600 around so the lens extended back over
his shoulder while shooting with the 70-200 kit:

<http://equinephotoart.exposuremanager.com/p/sports-misc/2006-09-02-jcd-ls1f511154>
<http://equinephotoart.exposuremanager.com/p/sports-misc/2006-09-02-jcd-ls1f463251>

The 600 is on my wishlist for 2007.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

JC Dill wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:31:57 +0100, "embee" <>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm using a Canon 1DMkIIN
> <snip>
>> I would like to invest in a better piece of glass
>> (particulary for candids, sport and the occassional wildlife shot).
>> I would like to buy an L series lens which has stabilisation.
>
> I shoot a 1DMII and occasionally borrow a 1DMIIn. My primary work
> is
> action work (sport, horse events, etc.), and I also do a lot of
> candids. You can see my work at: http://gallery.equinephotoart.com
>
>> I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM,
>
> I own this lens, and absolutely love it. This lens lives on my
> camera, and occasionally I swap it with the 24-70 L (which I'm in
> the
> process of buying) when I need a wider view. I don't know of anyone
> who has anything bad to say about this lens except for the price
> and/or weight,

Re: the 24-70 L. There were apparently some focusing problems with a
number of early examples, since resolved, I think. Seems to me the new
new ones should be good, and any used ones in use must have been
corrected by now. I got one second-hand on eBay, saved a couple-three
hundred, and it was used but perfect. 24mm on a FF is verging on
really wide, and 70mm is close to portrait country. Nice piece of kit.

--
Frank ess

> but since you are moving down from a BigMo the weight
> shouldn't be an issue for you and IMHO there simply isn't a better
> lens for the price. You DO get what you pay for with this lens.
>
>> with a 2x extender or the EF
>> 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
>
> I have a friend who owns this lens and who loans it to me
> occasionally. I really don't like using this lens. The zoom isn't
> nearly as smooth, the lens isn't as fast, and I don't like how it's
> not sealed (how dusty air can get sucked into the lens when
> zooming).
> I also don't like the zoom adjustment setting (where the lens zooms
> more freely, or not as freely, or you can lock the lens at one
> zoom).
> When I have the option, I would only use this lens if I absolutely
> needed greater range than can be had with my 70-200. (Sometimes I
> didn't have the option, sometimes I needed 2 telephoto cameras
> working
> at the same time so my 70-200 is on one body and the 100-400 on the
> other body.) This lens is not one I'm considering purchasing.
>
> My friend also loans me his 1.4x extender, which I use with my
> 70-200.
> I also love that combo - the lens can't go below f4 with the 1.4
> attached but the extended range with the 1.4 is very nice. I'm
> going
> to rent a 2x and try that with my lens to compare, and then decide
> which one to purchase.
>
> At a local soccer match there was another pro photographer with 2
> cameras going at once. He had the 70-200 with a 2x on one body, on
> a
> strap around his neck, and a 600 on the other body mounted on a
> monopod. He would twist the 600 around so the lens extended back
> over
> his shoulder while shooting with the 70-200 kit:
>
> <http://equinephotoart.exposuremanager.com/p/sports-misc/2006-09-02-jcd-ls1f511154>
> <http://equinephotoart.exposuremanager.com/p/sports-misc/2006-09-02-jcd-ls1f463251>
>
> The 600 is on my wishlist for 2007.
>
> jc

"embee" <> wrote:

> I'm considering the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM, with a 2x extender or
> the EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
> I know I am not the first person to make this choice, but I
> wondered if anybody here would be kind enough to share their
> experience of either/both of these lenses to help me evaluate my
> best option.

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and love this lens. I find that my
1.4x converter produces reasonably good images and still allows f/4.
For weekend candid shots of the type you describe, I think this lens
would be perfect. My only 'problem' with this lens is that I find
it a bit too short for field sports and even some types of hockey
shots. Even with the 1.4x mounted, it is not quite long enough for
good close-up shots of the plays, players' emotions, etc. I do not
consider the 2x to be a reasonable option because of the f/5.6
maximum aperture and reduced image quality. For indoor sports like
hockey, 5.6 is just not fast enough. In addition, I would never go
for a tele without image stabilization. It's just too useful;
especially for the kind of candids that you describe. I can easily
handhold my 70-200 IS lens at 200mm and 1/160 sec. For sports I
almost always use a monopod. I've decided that my next tele will be
a 300 f/2.8 L IS. With the 1.4x this will give 420mm at f/4. It's a
very pricey lens but I figure it 's the best next step for me to go
longer. BTW, if I were in your shoes and had neither lens, I'd still
buy the 200mm f/2.8 IS and a 1.4x first and then get the 300mm f/2.8
IS when I figured I both needed it and could afford it. BTW, I never
considered the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS because of it's mediocre
reputation for picture quality and because of its slow 5.6 maximum
aperture at 400mm.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:43:50 -0700, "Frank ess" <>
wrote:

>JC Dill wrote:
> occasionally I swap it with the 24-70 L (which I'm in
>> the process of buying)
>
>Re: the 24-70 L. There were apparently some focusing problems with a
>number of early examples, since resolved, I think. Seems to me the new
>new ones should be good, and any used ones in use must have been
>corrected by now. I got one second-hand on eBay, saved a couple-three
>hundred, and it was used but perfect. 24mm on a FF is verging on
>really wide, and 70mm is close to portrait country. Nice piece of kit.

Thanks for that info, I didn't know that. Fortunately it doesn't
apply with this lens because the one I'm buying belongs to my friend
and I've used it numerous times with no problems.

jc


--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA