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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Aaaardvark, Jan 24, 2004.

  1. Aaaardvark

    Aaaardvark Guest

    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.
     
    Aaaardvark, Jan 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aaaardvark

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >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/reviews/lenses/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
     
    Bill Hilton, Jan 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Aaaardvark

    Ron Recer Guest

    >From: "Aaaardvark" _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
     
    Ron Recer, Jan 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Aaaardvark

    PlaneGuy Guest

    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?
     
    PlaneGuy, Jan 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Aaaardvark

    Henrik Guest

    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" <_TO_REPLY.com> wrote in message
    news:4012af3c$...
    > 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.
    >
    >
     
    Henrik, Jan 25, 2004
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rob Davison

    10D 100-400L and Err 03 ?

    Rob Davison, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    455
    BUNTOVNIK
    Aug 19, 2003
  2. leo

    Canon 75-300mm IS vs 70-200L f/4

    leo, May 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    5,909
  3. emski

    Canon 1.4 EF extender

    emski, Feb 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    411
  4. Lance

    Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter

    Lance, Oct 11, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    63
    Views:
    2,366
    Skip M
    Oct 24, 2005
  5. Lucas
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    615
    Skip M
    Jan 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page