70-200 2.8 + 1.4x convertor VS 100-400mm is

1

#13

Suspended / Banned
Messages
414
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
right im ina pickle, i am soon ready to buy my first L grade lens but im not too sure which

im leaning towards the 100-400mm but the 2.8 for low light is appealing on the 70-200 with the converter i will get a similar focal lenth to the 100-400 at F/4??

tis a horrible choice, advice needed badly!!

will be using the lens for motorsport and american football
 
before spending that kind of cash why not rent the one you're most drawn to and try it out for the weekend, it's an expensive mistake if you get it wrong
 
I have both of these and the 1.4.
I don't like using the 1.4, I do notice a loss of sharpness when I have, unless you really need the 2.8, I would go for the 100-400 and save for the 70-200 later.
 
The 70-200 with the TC attached will only be a 280 as opposed to a 400, so it's more a question of whether you'll miss the extra reach rather than the faster glass.

Bear in mind you can compensate for the loss of f2.8 with a higher ISO, but there's no compentsation for the loss of 120mm other than cropping in post.

(Well, that or standing on the left hash on the 30 yard line! :D)
 
Simmotino said:
The 70-200 with the TC attached will only be a 280 as opposed to a 400, so it's more a question of whether you'll miss the extra reach rather than the faster glass.

Bear in mind you can compensate for the loss of f2.8 with a higher ISO, but there's no compentsation for the loss of 120mm other than cropping in post.

(Well, that or standing on the left hash on the 30 yard line! :D)
Click to expand...

thanks for the fast replys, i could raise the iso but my body is a 450D so i wont go higher than 800 as its pretty poor at 1600

hmm i have a 55-250mm now so a 30mm increase in reach isnt what im after i will stil be wanting to go longer i recon so looks like its the 100-400mm IS USM
 
I still think you'd be better off renting one to see if it's right for what you want it for, f/5.6 @400mm is quite slow if the american football is gong to be shot under floodlights
 
wack61 said:
I still think you'd be better off renting one to see if it's right for what you want it for, f/5.6 @400mm is quite slow if the american football is gong to be shot under floodlights
Click to expand...

kick off is at 2pm latest i've known is 4pm and the season runs in the summer months
 
Two very different lenses, both have IS but the 70-200 has the advantage of the faster max aperture. Using a 1.4X TC is acceptable with the 70-200, but it becomes an F4 and you need to stop down a stop or two before it's as sharp as the 100-400 wide open, so you're down to f5.6 or f 8

The 70-200- 2.8L IS is a very fast crisp lens within it's focal range, and is best used that way.

The 100-400L has more reach and is somewhat slower max aperture wise. It wont AF on a non- 1 Series body, but image quality would be noticeably degraded anyway.
Teleconverters are really best used used behind prime lenses.
 
thanks guys i think i need the reach of the 100-400mm more than the speed of the 70-200 2.8, for now at least, and given what i will be shooting motorsport and american football during the summer afternoons, the reach will be alot more benifcial and the light wont be as big an issue
 
Had the 100-400 and hated it, hate how it push/pulls. If you've not got great light, you may struggle!

I'd recommend the 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4tc.

Carl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top