70-300/4-5.6L IS

<p>So. . .with some money burning a hole in my pocket; I am considering a 70-300/4-5.6L-IS.</p>

<p>BUT. . .it appears that the $25 tripod collar is NOT included; is sold for $250, and not even available from B&H or Adorama.</p>

<p>BUT. . .it appears this $1600 lens won't accept the Canon 1.4TC.</p>

<p>Can anyone confirm these two annoyances?</p>

<p>Personally, if I can't mount the TC, then I can't make much case for this lens over my 70-200/4L. Why couldn't they update the 100-400/4.5-5-6L and ditch that push-pull design instead? #grumble</p>

<p>I wouldn't get the 70-300mm, especially if you already have a 70-200mm. If you don't like the push/pull of the 100-400mm, then just get the 400mm f/5.6L prime. You already have 70-200mm covered and the prime is cheaper and will have better IQ and faster AF. An alternative to the 400mm prime is the 300mm f/4L IS +1.4x tele-converter. You get a 420mm f/5.6L IS lens this way, but have to sacrafice some IQ to the converter.</p>

<p>Yeah. . .I am not into a F5.6 <em>prime.</em></p>

<p>I lusted after the 300/4L-IS for a while. . but honestly I think a long prime will be of too little use for me. If I was Hercules, capable of lugging 80lbs of gear in one hand -> I would happily carry it right next to my 70-200. Unfortunately, I don't picture carrying both lenses all the time.<br>

So. . .I gravitated to the 100-400; but the push-pull turned me off. Of course, if they update this puppy, the price will probably clock in at a solid $2K; maybe I should just pull that trigger. . . .</p>

<p>Jim, FYI:<br /><br />EF 70-200mm f/4 L - 705g<br />EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS - 1360g<br />EF 300mm f/4 L IS - 1190g<br />EF 400mm f/5.6 L - 1250g</p>

<p>So lugging around either of the primes with your 70-200 would be a little less onerous than lugging around a 100-400 with it. Or are you contemplating replacing your 70-200 with a 100-400? Optically speaking, I think that would be a mistake.</p>

<p>The 70-300 L won't accept the Canon 1.4TC but it may work with the Tamron 1.4TC. I have the non-L version of 70-300 and I can use the Tamron TC it (as with the L lens, the Canon will not fit due to the potruding front element). Other makes of TCs such as Kenko may work as well. But it sounds like you already have the Canon TC so you could end up with two TCs or selll the Canon and buy the Kenko (which some reviews say is pretty close in quality).</p>

<p>I also understand that the tripod collar is not included. Rather than pay the extortionate cost of the Canon collar, I have just bought this one for my 70-200f4L IS from Amazon. It seems solid and well made: <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/iShoot-Tripod-Mount-Canon-EF70-200mm/dp/B002V80BC6/ref=pd_ybh_18?pf_rd_p=138755991&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=1NS34R2T5GG11PWP2BW5">http://www.amazon.co.uk/iShoot-Tripod-Mount-Canon-EF70-200mm/dp/B002V80BC6/ref=pd_ybh_18?pf_rd_p=138755991&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=1NS34R2T5GG11PWP2BW5</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, it is cheap from Canon that the tripod collar is not included. I know that the collar is also not included with the 70-200 f/4, but that is a cheaper lens. Moving on...<br>

The good news is that this new lens seems to be an excellent performer (according to the review on Digital Picture site), besting the 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4 TC. The new L zoom does not take the Canon TCs, because it has a new floating element in its design towards the back of the lens (to improve aberration correction). Personally, I don't see this as a problem, because if you use the lens on a crop camera, it will be 480mm in the long end anyway, long enough for me.<br>

The IS in the new lens is way better than the old IS on the 100-400 L, which is not surprising, of course. And it is better optically.<br>

In the end, which lens you choose, it will depend on the camera (FF vs. crop) and in the focal length (and TC requirements) you may need.</p>

<p>In general, I would see carrying one of the white lenses on a given day; not both. I am a bit of a gear collector; so I would "add" as opposed to "replace" lenses.</p>

<p>I do have the 1.4TC; and I use it frequently with the 70-200/4L. In fact, I generally store the TC on the lens. I have been impressed enough with the image quality of the combination that getting a 70-300 that can't take the TC doesn't work for me.</p>

<p>yeah. . yeah. . .yeah. . the new lens has IS; whereas the 70-200/4L does not. But then I can just get the 70-200/4L-IS which sounds like a real sweet heart to me. Shame the 70-200/4L-IS was introduced three years after I bought the non-IS version; or I would have bought that one at the start. So. . .I am thinking 100-400. They probably will update 3 months after I finally buy one :)</p>

<p>I also have the 70/200L f4. I owned and used the 100/400L for about 10 years and was happy with the results. That is, until I tried a friends 400: f5.6. It is sharper wide open than the 100/400L is at any f stop. It also has much faster AF acquisition. As a nature photographer I have said if I could have only one lens it would be the 100/400L, but if I could have two lenses it would not be one of the them. The switch to the 400L f.56 was not much of a problem, I've learned to zoom with my feet and over 90% of the images I took with the 100/400L were at 400 anyway. Another positive with 400L f5.6 is the very good results achieved with Canon 2x. I've taken hundreds of images the 100/400L and the 2x and was never happy with the results. Here is a image taken with 400L f 5.6 and Canon 2x.<br>

Shot from 11 feet ISO 640:</p>

<p><img src="http://meckstein.com/post/df.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>You might want to check out the Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 VC USD. I have one and am pretty impressed. It won't have the same build quality and fondle factor of the great white Canon, but it is sharp wide open throughout its range, has ring USM, and the VC seems to work well. Plus it is only around $450.</p>

<p>While I could afford the Canon too, I think as a consumers we should boycott their overpriced lenses. They are exploiting our addictions with this one. Given its range and that it is an f4-5.6 lens I think it should be priced under $1000.</p>

<p>Also check out the photozone review. The Canon L didn't strike me as impressive as one might have thought given its price.</p>

<p>Hmmmm. I have brain failure. Will the 100-400/5.6 AF with a 1.4 TC attached on a 40D? Anyone have experience with that combo?</p>

<p>Ahhh, no, the 100-400 won't AF with the Canon TC, or any other that reports it's presence. While others will disagree, I've found that my shots are better cropped than using a TC and manual focus.</p>

<p>Actually a 100/400L with taped pins does pretty well with auto focus.</p>

<p>Image taken with 100/400L with Canon 1.4X:<img src="http://meckstein.com/post/rbgull.jpg" alt="" width="650" height="433" /></p>

<p>Personally, I always found that a push pull zoom was the single most intuitive thing they could have built. But then I also loved Eye-control (before it's demise in the wastebins of Canon). I would do the 70-200/2.8 and use the 1.4tc on it. I think you'll be much happier with that setup. on your 40, you'll have effectively up to 448mm@ f4... not bad.</p>