70-200/2.8 plus TCs as a way to a 300-400mm lens - good idea?

[rob_sheneman]

Thanks to everyone who made suggestions to my previous question. The feedback was very useful. I had a follow-up thought.

I've got an 80-200 f/2.8L now. Should I could sell it and upgrade to the new 70-100 f/2.8L and teleconverter(s)? This would get me into the 300-400 range without breaking the bank and get USM capability. Does anyone have performance data from this combination? Does it become soft w/ the teleconverters?

Then, if I find the need for bigger glass I could work hard...save...scrounge...sell my pickup...sell my eldest child ;-)...

Any thoughts, suggestions, criticisms?

[farul_ghazali1]

Alternatively, you could keep your 80-200L and buy a 300/4L with a 1.4 teleconverter. This way you lose USM and FTM capability between 80-200 but you have a superb 300mm, and a pretty darn good 420. The cost would be pretty much the same.

 

<p>

 

I've used the 70-200L with a 2x tc and the quality was still excellent blown up to 8x12 (Fuji Reala, tripod mounted).

[don_baccus]

I think you'd be better off with the 300/4 and teleconverters, if you can afford to do that (trading up to the 70-200/2.8L would be cheaper even though you wouldn't get a great price on the 80-200/2.8L).

 

<p>

 

Though I've been one of those arguing the merits of big glass, keep in mind that I've done so largely because of a claim that it's overrated, not because I think you need it to get started. Also, of course, even those of us who own larger telephotos usually also own a 300 of some sort, so if you're trying to build a system you'll want one too.

 

<p>

 

I learned a ton shooting my old 400/5.6 + converters (yes, 800/11 at times, as I mentioned I've sold a snowy plover shot taken that way twice, much to my horror actually as it's pretty damned soft).

 

<p>

 

One reason to suggest the 300/4 vs. the Sigma 400/5.6 is that the Canon 300/4 L is a great lens to build your system with even if you do hope to add fast, long glass later on. The 300 and 400 focal lengths are both superbly covered by the 300 and 1.4x. I'd certainly suggest you spend the extra bucks for the Canon 1.4x vs. a third party extender. A 400/5.6 is more redundant in a system with a large,

long telephoto, a 300/4 is not, in other words (assuming you might, say, spring for a used EF 500/4.5, for instance).

 

<p>

 

So, I view the 300/4 as being a permanent building block along the path to putting together a complete system, and a logical next step given the fact that you already own the 80-200/2.8L.

 

<p>

 

I'd give serious consideration to the IS version, too. I got to play with one last week. Two brothers were out, one Nikon, one Canon (imagine their dinner chit-chats!) and the Canon guy had been shooting the 300/4 IS. He and his Nikon brother both said it was extremely nice, and it had the rugged feel of typical Canon L construction to me. I don't know how well IS works with extenders, though...

 

<p>

 

Of course, there's also the question of how satisfied you are with the 80-200/2.8L. I also own one, and have been tempted to upgrade to the newer version, but after thinking things over realized I really do like the 80-200/2.8L a lot. The two three appealing features of the new one are 1) the USM motor with FTM 2) compatibility with extenders and 3) (less important, of course) 77mm filter size (matches two other lenses I own while the 72mm of the 80-200/2.8L matches none). Gee, nearly talked myself into it again! :) Seriously, for me the value of these three things (plus slight optical improvement) hasn't been worth it - yet.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, if part of the motivation for considering the upgrade + extenders route is due your drooling over this really great 70-200/2.8L zoom, I think you'd find that it makes a decent 280/4 with the 1.4x and a reasonable good 400/5.6 with the 2x.

[glen_johnson]

All of the people I've known who had the 80-200 f/2.8L like it. They think about upgrading to the new lens, but then they don't do it. There was even a guy who posted a note over in the neighbor to neighbor section that the 80-200 was better than the 70-200 for shooting USAF test targets (I don't do this, so I don't care :-)).

 

<p>

 

I switched over to Canon after the 70-200 f/2.8L had been released, so that is the one that I have myself. It is softer with a teleconverter than without one, and when you use a teleconverter, Canon recommends that you stay with the central focus cell for autofocus. But you can still get decent images.

 

<p>

 

A lot of people screw up when they put a teleconverter on their 200mm lens, and then blame the lack of sharpness on the teleconverter, when, in fact, a significant reason for the lack of sharpness is due to the fact that their shooting technique was acceptable at 200mm, but not adequate to deliver the goods at 400mm.

 

<p>

 

The neatest thing about the 70-200 f/2.8L in my book is that it can really produce slides that have a lot of impact. It is similar to a decent prime lens in this regard. Sometimes people use the term "punch." I am starting to think that another good word is "sparkle." The best slides produced with this lens have an almost three dimensional quality, and some slides nearly jump up from the light table and grab you by the lapels. This doesn't always show up in projection, and it doesn't show up in projection at all with typical projection lenses.

[dan_smith]

Sorry guy, but with the 89-200 & a 1.4 converter you are already at a 240 f/4 lens, so why buy a 300? It seems redundant. Go at least a 400 with good glass. A 500 is possible. You won't always be shooting the tame specimans of the overcrowded boardwalks of humidity centra:Florida. You might find yourself in the badlands trying to get bighorn sheep, or at the marshlands of the great basin working on a marsh wren at 15 feet, with two 1.4 converters & an extension tube to get the little guy big enough to see on film. If you are really serious you are going to have to bite the bullet to compete. Yes, some aftermarket glass is excellent, but too small a lens is like playing basketball for the Clippers. You are still in the NBA.......but.

[don_baccus]

The 80-200/2.8L he owns isn't compatible with the Canon 1.4x or 2.0x extenders, that's one of the problems - he really isn't at 280/4 currently. And the Canon 400/5.6 L has had mixed reviews, with some serious reviewers claiming it is really no better than the 300/4 + 1.4x, which gives you a 420/5.6. So in the Canon world one frequently sees the recommendation that one buy the 300/4 + 1.4x instead of the 400/5.6. Canon's older 400/2.8 L wasn't that hot, either, though they've rectified that with the new, calcium fluorite element, Mark II. Don't know what their problem is with this focal length!

 

<p>

 

And moving up from his existing 80-200/2.8L to the replacement 70-200/2.8L would cost about 2/3 simply buying the 300/4. And you can buy the 300/4 + 1.4x for about the same price as the 400/5.6, or the 300/4 + 1.4x + 2x for less than the 400/5.6 + 1.4x! So the 300/4 route gets you more flexibility, similar performance at 400/600, a 300/4, and costs $100 less to boot (new, B&H).

 

<p>

 

Canon doesn't make this as simple as it might seem in theory...