Canon 100-400 f4.5/5.6L zoom to buy or not to buy

P

pricega1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8
Edit My Images
Yes
This is my first post so I'll try to not bore you all.
I have a Canon 7D with a 70-200 f2.8L IS USM mark 1.
Question is, would it be worth buying the 100-400 f4.5/5.6L zoom or buy a 1.4x extender mark 3 to go with the 70-200. I've considered the 2x extender but having looked on the net it's probably not a good idea 'cos of loss of light, f stop etc. I'm interested in all sorts of photography from landscapes to wildlife, portrais etc. I would very much value your input on this.

Gary
 
The MkII and MkIII extenders have the same light loss, so on that basis it matters not which you get. I believe the MKIII has better weather sealing and better optics (but then again it's about x2 the price)..
 
The 1.4 extender is supposed to be OK on the 70-200 IS I, but most people say the 2x isn't worth the IQ loss.

You end up with a 98-280mm f4 which is quite a way off the 100-400L in length, but you've got an extra stop of like at 280mm (the 100-400 is about f/5-5.6 at ~300mm)

If you want to keep a reasonable wide aperture (and weather sealing) the 1.4x converter on the 70-200 is a better option (a lot cheaper as well), if you want maximum length the 100-400 is a good bet.

If you want that length but a bit cheaper, have a look at the sigma 150-500mm. Image quality isn't too far off the 100-400 when you stop it down a bit. (I found the one's I've tried at 400mm were as sharp at f/8 as the 100-400 wide open, which is admirable performance when you consider the price difference).
The sigma 50-500 can also be picked up quite cheap now the OS model is out, if you can do without OS this is even closer to the 100-400's IQ (at 400mm f/8 I doubt you'd see the difference between the two in any real world application).
 
Last edited:
Sorry Bracytron, what I meant was should I buy the 1.4x mk3 extender to go with my 70-200. (I have considered the 2x mk3 extender but I believe you lose 2 stops with this whereas with the 1.4 you loose 1 stop) Or buy the 100-400L lens.
 
squishy said:
The 1.4 extender is supposed to be OK on the 70-200 IS I, but most people say the 2x isn't worth the IQ loss.

You end up with a 98-280mm f4 which is quite a way off the 100-400L in length, but you've got an extra stop of like at 280mm (the 100-400 is about f/5-5.6 at ~300mm)

If you want to keep a reasonable wide aperture (and weather sealing) the 1.4x converter on the 70-200 is a better option (a lot cheaper as well), if you want maximum length the 100-400 is a good bet.

If you want that length but a bit cheaper, have a look at the sigma 150-500mm. Image quality isn't too far off the 100-400 when you stop it down a bit. (I found the one's I've tried at 400mm were as sharp at f/8 as the 100-400 wide open, which is admirable performance when you consider the price difference).
The sigma 50-500 can also be picked up quite cheap now the OS model is out, if you can do without OS this is even closer to the 100-400's IQ (at 400mm f/8 I doubt you'd see the difference between the two in any real world application).
Click to expand...

On the Canon 7D doen't the 70-200 end up at 156-448 taking the 1.6x crop sensor thingy into account?
 
Hi Gary,

have the same delema myself and after trying out a 100-400 lens a week ago, I was very impressed.

However, the cost of such a lens compared with a converter is quite a bit, so I have today bought a canon 1.4x and a Canon 2x converter off this site. They should be with me in a few days and I can have a play and see the difference.

Don't know your location, but if near me, you are welcome to come over and have a try. It will also be interesting putting both together with the 70-200 to see what the result is. The 1.4x will loose one stop and the 2x will loose 2 stops, but with the f2.8 on a reasonable day, it may work well?.................... or not.
 
Last edited:
Ditto here, I've used the 100-400 a few times on hire for a specific need as the cost of me buying it and lugging it around alongside 70-200 f/2.8 is too much, where as buying a 1.4x gives you the faster lens and that little extra reach more attractive but... doesn't quite reach as far :bonk:
 
pricega1 said:
Sorry Bracytron, what I meant was should I buy the 1.4x mk3 extender to go with my 70-200. (I have considered the 2x mk3 extender but I believe you lose 2 stops with this whereas with the 1.4 you loose 1 stop) Or buy the 100-400L lens.
Click to expand...

It's a difficult question. The difference between the Mk2 and Mk3 extenders is marginal - by far the biggest contributor is the quality of the main lens.

Bottom line is the 100-400L is the best of the options you're looking at, only beaten by ther 400L 5.6 prime. It's comfortably ahead of the 70-200L 2.8 IS with 2x extender, but only beats the new Mk2 version by a very small margin.

Here is the Mk2 with 2x Mk3 vs 100-400L - toggle arrow in the middle http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 Load up any number of comparisons you like on that site.
 
Last edited:
pricega1 said:
On the Canon 7D doen't the 70-200 end up at 156-448 taking the 1.6x crop sensor thingy into account?
Click to expand...

In the same way that the 100-400 becomes a 160-640mm.

It's easier to leave the crop factor out of things, since it applies to all lenses you can just ignore it while comparing focal lengths.
 
HoppyUK said:
Here is the Mk2 with 2x Mk3 vs 100-400L - toggle arrow in the middle http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 Load up any number of comparisons you like on that site.
Click to expand...

I've looked at this comparison a couple of times now, and to my eye, there seems to be a reasonably decent decrease in contrast and sharpness for the f2.8 II with 2x Mk3.

It occurred to me that perhaps its just the fact I'm comparing crops of test charts and deliberately looking for the differences. And I guess I'm not experienced enough to know how these charts translate to real world performance. I'm splitting hairs here? Maybe someone who's used both of these combos could comment on their experience. Is the 70-200 II with 2x extender is still capable of producing very pleasing prints? do you feel the 100-400 is noticeably better at 400mm?
 
I was looking at the 100-400 last year but every time I borrowed one, I never had it on anything other than virtually fully open at 400mm (just under wide open in fact, as the IQ wasn't great at 400mm). Even at that, I still wanted more reach!
For this reason I didn't end up buying one, but got the 400mm prime L series F5.6 and boy was it sharp. Probably my sharpest lens in my bag and very similar price to the 100-400.

Gareth
 
I had a similar situation but my lens was 70-200 f4, I decided to go for the 100-400 as the light loss and aperture loss was to much on the f4. I also prefer to gave two lenses which I can swap quicker than I could fiddling about outside trying to put converter on and off. Also planning ahead I would Luke to eventually have two bodies and two lenses would be ideal for airships with mo swapping about involved.
 
alexam said:
Hi Gary,

have the same delema myself and after trying out a 100-400 lens a week ago, I was very impressed.

However, the cost of such a lens compared with a converter is quite a bit, so I have today bought a canon 1.4x and a Canon 2x converter off this site. They should be with me in a few days and I can have a play and see the difference.

Don't know your location, but if near me, you are welcome to come over and have a try. It will also be interesting putting both together with the 70-200 to see what the result is. The 1.4x will loose one stop and the 2x will loose 2 stops, but with the f2.8 on a reasonable day, it may work well?.................... or not.
Click to expand...

Well I'm in Lincoln so not so close but interesting how so many of you guys are having the same dilema.
 
Xenon54 said:
I've looked at this comparison a couple of times now, and to my eye, there seems to be a reasonably decent decrease in contrast and sharpness for the f2.8 II with 2x Mk3.

It occurred to me that perhaps its just the fact I'm comparing crops of test charts and deliberately looking for the differences. And I guess I'm not experienced enough to know how these charts translate to real world performance. I'm splitting hairs here? Maybe someone who's used both of these combos could comment on their experience. Is the 70-200 II with 2x extender is still capable of producing very pleasing prints? do you feel the 100-400 is noticeably better at 400mm?
Click to expand...

Maybe you're splitting hairs, maybe not. Different folks' definition of 'tack sharp' varies a lot. To get a better idea of what those test chart crops mean in real terms, load up images from a lens you're familar with and think is pretty good, and then take a view.

There is always something sharper to be had, but with lenses like this the optical performance is often far from the weakest link in the chain - you've got to nail the focus first, often with a moving subject, and have a high enough shutter speed to prevent any blurring. These are major considerations, before the lens even has a chance to show what it can do. You need a good AF system in both the camera and lens, and damn good technique to go with it.

Choosing a 400mm lens is very difficult, there are so many ways to go. There are lots of choices, none is perfect, and they are all either subtly different or completely different LOL. There is a rule of thumb though, and that is, if you want a 400mm lens, get a 400mm lens. It will always beat a zoom or anything with an extender, on every aspect of performance.
 
If you think you will be at the long end of the 100-400 all the time then I would go for the 400mm lens.

If you want the usability of a zoom then look no further than the 100-400mm it does exactly what it says on the lens lol, I have it and it is a good lens and produces excellent images.

Why not hire one for a week or so and see what you feel about it before spending all the maney?? or buy one and if it does not do the job sell it you will loose no money on it.
I am not a fan of coverters personally, I asked the same question when looking for a lens in the first place and decided against it for the loss of quality and f stops.

spike
 
If you've already got the zoom and are going to keep it, I would also suggest getting the 400mm prime, it is a great lens.
 
SpikeK6 said:
I am not a fan of coverters personally, I asked the same question when looking for a lens in the first place and decided against it for the loss of quality and f stops.

spike
Click to expand...

Yeah but then the mkII 70-200 and mkIII TC came out, which, from what I've read, has narrowed the gap between a converted and raw lens somewhat. The question I'm trying to answer is if the 70-200 + 2x is good enough the bulk of the time (for me).

My personal twist on this is that I've got the 70-200 f4 IS, and was considering an upgrade to the new f2.8 version anyway, so can simply adding the 2x solve my "length issues" on the cheap. The jury's still out....
 
Not so expensive to hire both converters for a day............ preferably the Friday or Saturday so you get a day extra. Then use your own lens to test both?
 
In regard to Canon extenders (teleconverters), I'm comfortable that you would find the IQ loss with a 2x to be considerable and disappointing. The only exception being using one with a 300mm f/2.8 which seems to be a special case. IMHO, the 1.4x II or III is a different game and I believe you would find this useful.
In regard to the 100-400L, might I suggest that you are duplicating part of your existing range. It might be worth considering the 400mm f/5.6 as an alternative strategy.
IIRC, with both the 100-400 AND the 400 prime you'll lose the AF on a 7D body if you attach an extender (only works with centre AF point on a 1D series body).
 
Thanks guys for your comments. I like the idea of hiring the 100-400 and the 400 to try out. As usual with me it'll probably take an age for me to decide what to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top