2 change 70-200 for 100-400 or not?

S

SouthernSnapper

Suspended / Banned
Messages
170
Name
Sandra
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a dilema. Whilst on holiday I was really disappointed to miss a shot due to lack of reach. I know some say just get closer to your subject, but thats not always possible. Maybe just wait for it to get closer or another opportunity....but when its there and its now you just want to get the shot. I have the 70-200 f4 a lovely lens and even with the 1.4TC was still not enough reach.
So I'm looking at the canon ef 100-400L so I could use the teleconverter. Somewhat spendy though.. So I was wondering if anyone has this lens and their experience of it. I'd probably trade in the 70-200
or
exchange 70-200 for the f2.8 version and get the 2xTC.
Have started saving so I have a little while to decide. Value your opinions though.
Thanks
 
The 70-200 and a 2x isnt a good idea, (not unless your buying the Mk2 70-200). If its the non-IS or Mk1 then you will be disappointed in the quality of the image. There is a huge impact going from a 1.4 x to a 2 x.
 
I had heard that, though thought that having the speed for the 70-200 may offset that.
I see you have the 100-400. Is the linear zoom easy to get used to...

Though of course there is also the sigma 50-500 which gets very good reviews. It would also mean fewer lens changes:shrug:
 
All I would say is "How often are you going to use it" in comparison to the 70-200f4

I find my 100-400 goes on Safari and to airports, and apart from that stays in the bag whilst the 70-200f4 IS is my constant companion now.

Yes it gives you reach, but its heavy and you just dont take it places you would take the 70-200
 
I have the 100 400 and the push pull zoom is easy to use and becomes second nature, It's the lens **** is on both mine and the wifes cameras most of the time. I have just bought a 70 200 2.8 sigma and do find I like using it and have that on my second camera.

I think you need to look at what you shoot and which lens would suit your needs best.
 
I have the 70-200 F4L, 300 F4L IS and 1.4X and 2X II TCs. My father has the 100-400 and 1.4X II.

The 2X is a disappointing bit of kit - I've never, in many years on film or digital got a decent result out of it. Even on the phenomenal 135 F2L it doesn't give great results.

The 1.4X TC on the 100-400 will lose you AF on anything but a 1D series body. It's also not spectacularly sharp - best to stop down one stop, which will pull you down to F11.

On its own the 100-400 is a nice lens. Definitely give you more reach than you have.
 
These were taken with the 100-400 at 400 and 70-200 at 200 from the same vantage point both on 5D MKII FF Bodies

100-400 @ 400

400s.jpg


70-200 f4 IS @ 200

200s.jpg


So thats the extra reach you will get, the 100-400 is in its element here, but back in the UK I find the 70-200 a much more versatile bit of kit and crop heavy as and when needed.
 
Nice shot Dave. My OH would love those kind of shots. So no obvious problems with the x2TC.
How often will I use it. Well your right, probably not as much as the 70-200 which is why I thought I could exchange it for the 2.8 and then with a new x2TC have the extra reach..maybe the best of both then. The 70-200 f4 is the IS version so not a huge difference in price(she says trying to sound convincing:suspect:)
I've just checked out your flickr shots Peter, really nice. Its inspired me to get back to Richmond Park .
. .lots to consider
I'd heard the old x2TC was disappointing, but isn't there a new one.
Graham I wouldn't say I have a specific area. I love macro, and marvel at the world it opens up. Landscapes well never really saw this as my thing.. however am converting after a recent trip to skye/Lewis and Haris, and wildlife yep like this.
.501/Richard thanks your 100-400 really sells it for me. That's the kind of difference I was hoping for.....may be I'd be better off holding on to the 70-200 but justifying having both..tricky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top