Have EF70-200/2.8 non-IS & 1.4x and need more -- what to choose from?

[lazybird]

Hi.

 

I know 400/2.8 is great, but it's not acceptable, at least at this

time. ,)

 

The pictures taken with 70-200+1.4 is good enough, but IMHO is not

perfect -- sometimes (on 20D) they are a bit soft, may be this is a

autofucus issue, I don't know -- I didn't yet shoot enough to make an

opinion... I woild say that pictures from 70-200 are just great, while

ones taken with 1.4x are not.

 

So, right now I doubt buying TC2x, I'm just afraid it will not suit my

needs.

 

I shoot landscapes most of the time -- most of the shots then stitched

into hi-res images. That means that I probably can will live without

big aperture, but I need sharpness, contrast (all variations) and some

flare resistance (I hope it's possible to get it all in one package ,

).

 

100-400L IS for sure will be better at 400 than 70-200+TC2x. Will it

be better at 280 (vs 70-200+TC1.4x)?

 

300/4L IS may be better at 300 than my set-up -- how it will perform

with 1.4x attached? 2x?

 

Don't know much about those Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses.

 

 

So may be there're another approaches, what else I missed?

[mike_smith2]

If you are using a tripod for most of your landscape shots the older EF 300F4 lens is probably the lens to go for, you already have a good midrange zoom and the 1.4 t/c,

 

The 300 plus 1.4 tc is as sharp if not sharper than the 100-400 at 400, and is lighter. It has fewer lens elements and groups than the later 300 F4 IS version and people usually report the older lens is sharper as a result. However if you are handholding the lens then IS is invaluable and probably makes up for any sharpness differences.

 

Mike Smith

[yakim_peled1]

<p> Do not forget <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">Canon's Forgotten 400</a> :-)<b></b> </p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[marrio]

You aren't missing much, I think. If more reach is what you want but expect sharpness and

high image quality, then the longest <b>prime lens</b>, rather than a zoom lens is what

you need. What can you afford? A 300/4L, 400/4L DO :-), 500/4L, 600/4L? Of course, the

1.4X extender will degrade sharpness and contrast of either one but not to an unacceptable

degree. The 2X would be a little worse, so stopping down would be advisable. Use the

search button here to take advantage of several discussions on this topic or visit Bob Atkins'

website for more details.

[mark_chappell]

As Wayne said, the topic of what to do for a reasonably affordable 400 mm lens has been

repeatedly beaten to death on this forum. There's quite a bit of controversy over the various

options but for landscape photography (where you're on a tripod and can stop down a bit),

there's not a lot of difference in terms of image quality between the 400/5.6L, 300/4 +1.4X,

or the 100-400. I have the 100-400 and it (my copy) is very good between 100 and about

300; at longer focal lengths it softens just a bit wide open but is very good stopped down to f

8 or so. I like the 100-400 for its versatality and because it is relatively compact when

zoomed back to 100 mm -- at 400 it's quite long and somewhat front-heavy.

[Greg M]

Here's a folder of shots, most of which were taken with a 100-400L- you can click on the EXIF date for each image to see the focal length used. I like mine alot:

 

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/754463

[Greg M]

Regarding the above folder, the lead image when you open that folder up was shot at 400mm, f5.6 and very close the minimum focusing distance. It gives you a very good idea as to the very shallow depth of field you have to deal with when shooting up close at 400mm. you have to be very careful to verify you've focussed where you wanted to. Many of the other shots were taken using much smaller f-stop settings. If you want good depth of field that's what you have to do, meaning image stabilization is very important if you don't like tripods, like me.

[pontus_gustavsson]

300mm f/4L IS if you shoot handheld and 400mm f/5.6L if you shoot from a tripod and need more reach. I love the IS of the 300mm and the versality you get with the 1.4 extender. These two work great together. AF gets slower but sharpness is excellent.

 

I have your 70-200mm f/2.8L lens and the 300mm f/4L IS and love this combo. My next lens will be a 500mm.