100-400 vs 70-200 2.8L or F4.0 with TC 2.0X

[marknagel]

I'm looking at getting a long lens. I'd like 300-400MM max range

(before 1.6 crop) for my 20D. I'm considering these 3 lenses. The

70-200 F2.8 is a bit out of my price range, but who knows. IS is a

must for me, and I want to keep it a Canon lens. Anyone have any

combonations of these and if so, what is your opinions?

 

Mark Nagel

 

BTW I did search and saw some lens reviews, but nothing with this

combo.

[jim_mueller2]

I use the 300/4 IS with an EF 1.4X II = 420/5.6. It's sharp, it has IS and it still auto focuses on any Canon body at f5.6.

[phyrpowr]

Ditto Jim, I shot this at 1/80 from the deck of a moving boat, 100% crop, minimal sharpening in PS, 300 IS = 1.4 TC, f/6.3

[shambrick007]

<a href = "http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml">Here</a>

[eos 10 fan]

Have you seen this? <br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml</a><p>--

[gerry_szarek]

Tamron 200-500mm is your other choice.

[chris_whitted]

If the 70-200 2.8 is a bit out of your price range, the 400 DO and 300 2.8 IS most likely are as well, but if you check the 300 review on Luminous there's a comparison between those two and the 100-400. There's also <A HREF="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">this</A> which compares the 100-400 to the 400 5.6. You've said the IS is a must, which the 400 5.6 doesn't have (though I still think that link would be helpful to you), so the next best bet is the 300 4, which does have IS and is in the same price range. You can find a review of it on this site under the Canon equipment section.<BR><BR>

 

Is the zoom critical? What are you shooting and is f/stop critical? Is weight a consideration? Is ring zoom vs push/pull an issue? Personally, I went with the 70-200 2.8 IS and a 1.4x extender in order to replace my 75-300 IS. I looked at the 100-400 and just didn't like the push/pull. I'm hoping there will be a new version sometime in the next couple of years.

[frederick_chan]

Have you consider Sigma APO 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX OS AF lens? I bought one a few weeks ago and am very happy with the results at all range. Also I have purchased 2 Sigma TeleConverter APO EX AF 1.4 & 2.0 in case I need additional range. I use the shots for web site only and I mostly shoot my son's high school baseball practices, games and tournaments.

 

Try that lens out at the store.

 

Frederick

[marknagel]

Thanks for the reviews. They were helpful. I looked at it at the store today. I wasn't crazy about the push pull, but I think that would take more time with it to really decide what i think. Would like some zoom. The ideal lens would be 200-400 f/2.8 under $2k. I tried it against the 70-200, but I didn't get to the store until after dark and inside pictures didn't do it for me. I've owned a couple sigma lenses and wan't crazy about them. The store showed me difference in quaility between the same Sigma lens and the quality control issue scared me away from every buying another one, so i would like to stick with Canon lenses. Any other comments would be appreciated.

 

MArk

[mike_p2]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Auvw

[yakim_peled1]

I got the 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC.

 

I rejected the 100-400 for it's pull-push design and not-so-good performance at 400mm wide open, the 400/5.6 for it's lack of IS, the 300/2.8 IS and 400/2.8 IS for their weight and price, the 400/4 DO IS for the price and the Sigma lenses for fear of dealing with future incompatibility problems. So, by elimination, that left me with the 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC setup. FWIW, I am very happy.

 

Best regards,

Yakim.

[micheleberti]

In my previous post (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Auvw) I was also considering something like this. I am not so sure about the 100-400. Now I am considering to sell my 70-200 f/4 and get a 70-200 f2.8 IS because I belive the combo 70/200 2.8 + 1.4TC it is better epsecially if you wanna shot in low light condition or if you need high shutter speed (sports for example). Otherwise I would go fot the prime 300mm. I think in low light and sports the 4,5-5.6 it is not enought and quite unusable. That said I would go for the combo 70-200 2.8 IS + 1.4TC or the prime 300 + 1.4 TC and/or 2.0 TC.

[larry h.]

I once rented the 100-400 and the 70-200/2.8 IS + EF II 2x teleconverter to evaluate for a potential purchase. I had read the luminous landscape comparison, but that was with the EF I 2x converter, so it really is not a valid comparison as just about all the reviews I've read (including Canon's own press release) said that the newer 2x was improved optically.

 

The results of my test was that there's a tiny difference in the center (I didn't test the edge) between the two combinations. It amounted to a difference of only one set of lines on the standard USAF chart (sorry, I don't know how to explain what I mean better). To me, the difference is insignificant. BTW, the 100-400 was the sharper lens wide open at 400mm.

 

Your use is going to be more important as a determining factor. If you sometimes need a fast lens for indoors, get the 70-200/2.8 IS + 2x II. If you need to rapidly change focal lengths outdoors (think soccer), the 100-400 will be better. I'd rather not have a push pull design, but I can get used to anything.

 

The final consideration is that you will be using the lens on a 1.6x crop camera. To me, that would push me toward the 70-200/2.8 IS + 2x; the shorter focal length will come in handy for portraits. 100 x 1.6 = 160mm is too long.

 

In the end, only you can decide. Just don't expect one lens at 400mm is much sharper than the other one.

[digitmstr]

>> I'd like 300-400MM max range (before 1.6 crop) for my 20D. I'm The 70-200 F2.8<<

 

I would get the 300mm f/4L IS with the 1.4 TC

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I played with the 100-400 a few times and never liked its mechanics. It's quite nose-heavy at the long end (which is where I'd be using it most of the time), I didn't particularly like its push/pull design, and all of the examples I played with had binding between the focus ring and the zoom tension adjustment ring.</p>

 

<p>I ended up with the 300/4L IS USM, to which I later added the 1.4x II. The 300/4 is faster than the 100-400 at 300 (though with the 1.4x it's the same f/5.6 as the long end of the 100-400) and is a sharp lens, even wide open. As others have pointed out, this is a combination worth considering if you can live with just the 300 and 420 focal lengths.</p>

[qtluong]

In my own testing (MTF 50 measured by imatest.com), the 100-400@400 beat the 70-200x2@400 at all apertures. The 70-200 had a slight edge (not as large as reported by some) over the 100-400 in their common range. In practice, unless you need f2.8, the 100-400 is vastly more practical,

since carrying a 2x and taking on and off is quite inconvenient.

<a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/">Terra Galleria Photography</a>

[mark u]

You shouldn't even be thinking about combinations with a TC that give f/8 maximum aperture - no AF at all if the TC is Canon, slow and unreliable otherwise.

[marknagel]

Thanks, I'm leaning for the 100-400. I just need a sunny day to test it out before I spend Uncle Sam's refund. I want to compare it next to my Tamron 28-300 XRDi. I know its better, I just need to see if its $1000 better in my eyes.

 

Mark

[chris_whitted]

<I>"I had read the luminous landscape comparison, but that was with the EF I 2x converter, so it really is not a valid comparison as just about all the reviews I've read (including Canon's own press release) said that the newer 2x was improved optically."</I><BR><BR>

If you check the review, he notes that difference and also did an update when he got hold of a Mark II extender. Or at least a comparison between the Mark II and the original.

[william_bray1]

I have a canon 70 200 f/4 IS. So I have read, optically this is the best one of the 70 200 range, providing you can do with out the 2.8.Also I'm lead to believe the 100 400 only has 1 stop IS, and to get the best IQ it is best to stop it down to f/8 at 400mm.From my experience with the f/4 there is no difference in IQ if you stop it down and IQ remains through out the focal range. I tried the Kenko 2x tc and the IQ was very good indeed. Check out the image, this is straight from the camera shot in jpeg, no sharpening. Also the Kenko 2x retained auto focus it was slow but canon tc doesn?t even offer that at f/4.So if you take all that into account you can shoot with the 100 400 at 400mm with one stop IS and it's best to soot at f/8. Or you can shoot with the 70 200 f/4 at 400mm f/8, because of loosing 2 stops with the tc, but with a 4 stop IS. The only disadvantage I can see is slowness of AF, and this combo is not ideal for fast moving subjects in any thing else then bright conditions but the 100 400 only offers 1 stop faster. And some people might say the IQ isn't acceptable I happy with it, but my photography has a broad range. I don't specialize in birds or serious wildlife if I were to go down that road I?ll buy a prime lens.