Canon 1.4x Converter or 100-400 L ?

EdBray

EdBray

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,179
Name
Edward Bray
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have the following Canon lenses to use with my 5D body:

17-40L
28-105
70-200 f4 L Non IS
100 Macro

Now I quite like the 28-105, Love the 17-40 and 100 macro but not yet sure about the 70-200.

Should I keep the 70-200 and add a 1.4x Converter or sell the 70-200 and buy a 100-400 L ?

Has anyone used both and what do they think?

I think that the 100-400 would give me the most versatility, but at a cost of about an additional £300 (if I sell the 70 -200 f4 L for £300 and don't buy the 1.4x for £200) as it would give me a range then of 17-400 plus the 100 macro which I can also use for portriats.

I may also buy a secondhand 20D or 30D at some stage to give me a bit more length for when I really need it.

Just a bit concerned at the 100-400s quality. Thoughts?
 
i would think that 70-200 f4 +1.4 may be pushing it
if and it is IF you get a good copy the 100-400 would be well worth the money, but you may have other options

300 f4L (non IS) - works ok with a 1.4 giving 420mm f5.6

if you really do need a long lens often (birds?) then the 400mm f5.6 would give very good quality - hope this helps
 
The 1.4 TC would give you good versatility and be a lot lighter [on both the bag and wallet] than the 100-400. Really depends on what you shoot and which suits your needs. Why not try the TC and sell it on if you don't like it?
 
Can't speak for the 70-200 as I have not had/used that one. I do have a 1.4 TC, 70-200 2.8 IS and also have had the 100-400.

I would suggest going first for the 1.4 TC and trying that with the 70-200 - if you are not happy with the results replace the 70-200 with a 100-400. If you went for the latter option I would be inclined to keep the 1.4 TC.

Tom
 
The 100-400 is a good lens. It does get a bit soft at 400mm that's why I limit it to 350-375 where it is fine. I use this lens on both a 5D and a 1Dslll. The 1.4 converter is OK but like all converters does give some loss of detail, but in most cases this is fine.

The nice thing about the 70-200 f4 is it's light. The 100-400 is fairly heavy, but that's it's only real drawback.

I would ask why you are not happy with the 70-200 ?
 
Personally I would bite the bullet and go for the 100-400. I think you'd find yourself coming up short of reach with the 1.4 on the 70-200. You're only going to get a maximum of 280mm on the full frame body of the 5D. IMO the 100-400 is a cracking lens. I've only every found it to be pin sharp and really versatile.
 
Chappers said:
I would ask why you are not happy with the 70-200 ?
Click to expand...

Only reach really. With my Nikon outfit (D200 based) I used a 70-300 AF-D Sigma Apo (great lens) which gave me a 105-450 equivalent, which I often used for candids, wildlife etc. I now find that the 70-200 on a full frame 5D does just not have the reach I would sometimes like. As I am pretty well covered anyway up to 100mm I thought the 100-400 L would give me more options, but I do not want to suffer too much of a loss of quality.

I have read many reviews of the 100-400L and most rate the lens, but then I have seen the odd report that all is not what it should be. I also think that the IS may be an advantage too.
 
I've got the 70-200 F4 IS which I use with a 1.4TC, whilst I am happy with the pic quality (does slow the AF down a wee bit though) I do find too short for birds and the like. I won't be getting rid of the 70-200 (I love it) I am trying to make up my mind whether to get a 100-400 IS or the sigma 150-500 OS.
 
I had a 70-200 F4 with a 1.4x TC for a while. I just didn't get on with it. The lens as standard produces fantastic pictures, and I did notice a difference in contrast with the TC on. I also didn't feel like 80mm was that much more.

I've now got a 70-200 F2.8 with a 2x TC and again I'm not a big fan of the TC. There is certainly a drop in sharpness and contrast, I'd only use it in emergencies where I wouldn't otherwise get a shot.

If you have the money, I'd say go for the 100-400. The 70-200 itself is a great lens
 
If it's reach you want then the 100-400 is a good option. The other question is do you want a zoom. The 400 f5.6 is a better lens but no IS ( do you need it). I debated the prime rather than the zoom for some time, but opted for the zoom as it is more versatile, and the IS does help when you can't use a tripod or mono pod
 
I checked both out on Saturday and walked away the canon 70-300. I found the 100-400 too heavy and bulky for my usual work but would have liked it for Equine. That said I took the 70-300 out yesterday and got some excellent shots.
 
tarmac_chaser said:
I had a 70-200 F4 with a 1.4x TC for a while. I just didn't get on with it. The lens as standard produces fantastic pictures, and I did notice a difference in contrast with the TC on. I also didn't feel like 80mm was that much more.

I've now got a 70-200 F2.8 with a 2x TC and again I'm not a big fan of the TC. There is certainly a drop in sharpness and contrast, I'd only use it in emergencies where I wouldn't otherwise get a shot.

If you have the money, I'd say go for the 100-400. The 70-200 itself is a great lens
Click to expand...

Pants, I was going to get a Kenko 1.4 to go with my 70-200 f2.8:'(

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