Jump to content

70-200mm f/4L IS = 1.4X TC II or 100-400mm?


charles_lipton

Recommended Posts

The cost of the 70-200mm f/4L IS + 1.4X II on Amazon is $1328. The cost of the 100-400mm L on Amazon is $1419;

about $100 difference higher for the 1-4L.

 

If I borrow a friends 40D and use the 70-200mm + TC I'll effectively have a 180-440mm f/4-5.6 L quality lens in

comparison to the 1-4L on the 40D giving an effective 140-640mm. Used on my 5D I get a 98-280mm effective lens

(70-200mm) or...100-400mm actual.

 

I do not intend to stalk through the wilds chasing animals to photograph. I am also not into BIF photography and if i

need a portrait lens I have my 135mm f/2L. I basically want a great carry package for vacations and general

photography. I am a general 'tourista" photographer and will use the lens in conjunction with my 5D + 24-105mm.

 

Since I can't afford to buy both the lens and a new 40D or 50D...... what do you think is the best combo for overall IQ

and general purpose use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 70-200 is a constant-aperture zoom, the 1.4x converter will give a constant f/5.6 maximum aperture.

 

I'm not sure where you get 180-440...

 

If you want "general" photography I would just carry the 70-200 and save weight. Bring the 1.4x just in case. I wouldn't worry about the 2nd body except as backup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that f/4 zoom with 1.4x TC will work... it won't autofocus and if it will, it will be verrrrryy

sllllllow. If you want a long reach then 300mm f/4 IS would be the recommended way to go. From what I read f/4

prime is ok with teleconverters, or f/2.8 zoom is ok with teleconverters, but generally teleconverters slow

things down.

<br><br>

Also if you are used to your 5D but not 40D, personally i would prefer using my camera body... There can be

subtle and not so subtle differences. But definately having a dedicated body for a lens is helpful -- the price

you pay is the weight.

<br><br>

For best quality, 300mm f/4 IS... to be practical and not spend a bundle on a heavy 300mm f/2.8 IS. Sometimes

animals come to stalk you

<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/panoramic08/images/2008-03-30-gc-ba-sq-6529sp.jpg">

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Robert... I believe the 1.4x fits my 70-200 f/2.8 but I'm not sure if it fits the f/4 version. In any case, when I'm after "general" photos I don't carry more than the 70-200. If it fits, the AF should work OK at f/5.6

 

I agree the 300mm f/4 is excellent... one of my best lenses but for walking around I prefer 2 light to medium lenses. If I'm driving around and not going far from the vehicle I carry everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant to say that 300mm f/4 would be better than 70-200+tele or 100-400 lenses. For variety a zoom from among the 2 would work, but you will lose something... Both of the zooms or the 300mm are kind of big for general photography... I carry with me a 17-35mm 50mm/1.8 and 105mm/2.8 macro (the number are strange because it's Nikon, not Canon) and that is a decent amount of weight as is... but it can come with me anytime. Carrying any of the 3 will be... noticeable.

<br><br>

So then it has to be a question if 70-200 will do for focal lengths... which your 135 f/2 could kind of cover, or if the 300-400 of the 100-400 would be enough of an advantage to lose some quality that 300mm f/4 could do...... How about renting one or both for a week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 100-400 or 300 will probably do better, but the 70-200F4IS and 1.4II make a great combo. It sounds like you already know you aren't going to use beyond 200mm too much. The size of the F4 zoom is a treat. Works great with the 5D/24-105 or 40D/TC1.4II.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right... I'll set the matter straight...

 

Firstly, the 1.4x works perfectly with the 70-200 f4 and you DO NOT lose autofocus. Technically the AF speed is slower but in practice it is hardly noticeable. Focus is still fast and positive and if your lens has IS then it is also unaffected. The lens will become a 98mm - 280mm f5.6 (equivalent to 157mm - 448mm on a 1.6x crop SLR).

 

Secondly, if you intend using the 70-200 with the 1.4x alot then the 100-400 will probably give better image quality. I have the 70-200 f2.8L IS and the 1.4x but the slight quality loss with the 1.4x was annoying me so I ended up buying the 300mm f4L IS which is a superb lens and works fantastially with the 1.4x.

 

So, to summarise, if you want the best IQ and intend to use the 400mm end frequently the 100-400 will be your best bet. If you only plan on using the long end occasionally the 70-200 + 1.4x will be better. Also, remember you can buy the 300mm f4L IS and a 1.4x for the same price as a 100-400. What you lose in the versatility of the zoom you will gain in image quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the 70-200 f4 L plus 1.4x Extender. They work very well together with almost zero apparent loss in sharpeness. The do make a fiddly combination, though,

 

The 100-400 is a chunky old lens but would be quicker throughout the range.

 

If you want lightmess and can live with fiddling about with the extender then go for the 70-200 + 1.4X. If you want ease of use and don't mind the size and weight go for the 100-400.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IQ and AF are excellent with 70-200 f4 IS + (canon) TC 1.4 II. i was surprised how good this combo is. if it were me i'd get the 70-200 and save up for a 300 later. (i don't like the 100-400 very much. heavy, not great IQ)

 

i heard somewhere canon will come out with a new 100-400 (or similar range) lens in 2009. might be worth checking out if you're leaning that way (if the rumor is true)

 

here's an image shot with canon 70-200 plus canon TC 1.4 II.

 

if you want to see a 100% crop:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7923572&size=lg<div>00R10I-74561584.jpg.af83f99e9a802a814bcc2d0d97c7bcdb.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 70~200/4L IS, Extender 1.4x II, and 100~400, and I use them on both 1.6-factor and FF bodies. For me, the 100~400 is very much a wildlife (etc) lens, and I usually use it on my 40D. I carry it only when I am confident I will need it, and would not consider carrying such a large heavy lens as part of my walk-around kit - so that would apply to the 70~200/2.8 (IS or not) as well. The 70~200/4L IS lives in my walk-around bag with the 5D, and I usually carry the Extender 1.4x II in case I need longer than 200mm. As others who have actually used the combination have said, it works extremely well, and I for one have never come across a better zoom+TC combination. Indeed, I have seen claims from those who have made the comparison that it beats the various XX~300 zooms in image quality - the downside is that it is longer, a bit heavier, and more expensive. As Jamie points out, the combination is f/5.6 and will AF on any EOS body. For what you want, Charles, the 70~200/4L IS and Extender 1.4x II sound like the preferable combination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin

 

70-200 f4 IS with tc 1.4 II absolutely beats xx-300. sharpness (in the center, stopped down) is the closest comparison but the L wins by a tad (with the converter. w/o converter L wins outright). color, brightness, vignetting, corner sharpness wide open (and closed down), and contrast -- no contest, L wins -- with the converter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the 70-200 LIS F4. Buy a converter if you need a bit of extra length. The 100-400LIS is not an everyday lens, it's heavy, it's long, takes up a lot of space in the bag, takes a bit of learning and thought to use it well, and on a crop body is too long and too slow for walk-around use. Like I said elsewhere, You will know if you need it, otherwise don't get it. I love mine.

Neill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles, I guress I'm an L lens snob too. I have some non L lenses that I am very happy with, but with few exceptions, L lenses are usually worth the money.

 

The single best 2 lens combination for the 5D, IMO, are the 24-105L IS and one of the 70-200L ISs. For toting around "tourista" the F/4 is the better choice. For event type photography the F/2.8 is the better choice.

 

I frequently carry my 5D with the 24-105 and my 30D with one of the 70-200s. For times when you can carry two bodies, this is the perfect setup.

 

But many times it is not convenient to carry two bodies, so if you can't afford both the lens and the second body, I would go for the 70-200/4. You will get most of the benefit now, sans having to change lenses, and you can perhaps get the second body later. I have never used the 100-400, but unless you are shooting wildlife or outdoor sports, I wouldn't think you would want to tote around that much weight all of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suggestion would be to take the 70-200 F4 and 1.4x TC. Another thought is to take my approach which is the non-IS 70-200 F2.8 plus 1.4x TC. Even with a film camera I rarely miss IS but I know that I would miss the higher shutter speeds of the f2.8. It is obviously a bigger lens but Adorame price the 70-200 f2.8 only $90 more than the 70-200 F4 IS so if you can live without IS this lens may be another alternative. When I get my new 5D mkII I feel sure that the ability to use higher ISOs will completely obviate the need for IS. The only time I ever seem to need IS is when I have a slow film (e.g. Velvia 50 which i shoot at 32ISO) in the camera - even then this is rare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...