Is the Canon 70-200 F4L + Extender a worthy upgrade ?

Jwar1976

Jwar1976

Suspended / Banned
Messages
530
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I have recently upgraded to a 5D MK3 and while I love my 70-300 IS, I have been told by a fellow tog that for a trip on the broads I would need a minimum of 300mm to capture the essentials, but would need something with a bit more reach. Now unfortunately as the 70-300L is not compatible with extenders, I have heard that both the 70-200L range is (F2.8 & F4), as well as the Canon 100-400L & 300mm etc. Now as I do tend to visit quite a few zoos each year, I would like something that can be used hand held, due to not being able to use Tripods at zoos. Would the 70-200 F4L & extender be a good place to start, or is there another lens which I have missed out on ?.

Many Thanks

John
 
Hi John, if you need the reach I'd go for a lens with the focal length you need. Extenders cost you aperture and image quality. So in this case why not the 100-400? It's very handhold-able in my experience.
 
newbie1 said:
Hi John, if you need the reach I'd go for a lens with the focal length you need. Extenders cost you aperture and image quality. So in this case why not the 100-400? It's very handhold-able in my experience.
Click to expand...

Thanks Newbie, I did see the 100-400 in a second hand shop last year before I was even considering going full frame & the person in the shop said that it was mainly a tripod lens due to the weight, I did have a quick hold of the lens and it felt really well built, but didn't have my camera with me to try it on, I will have to pay Wex a visit with my 5D and see if I can try the 100-400 on it in store, then see how it is. Must admit it would be tempting to have another decent L Glass, as I have already got the 100mm 2.8L & the 24-105 F4L. So would make sense in getting the 100-400. Shame I didn't buy it at a time when I didn't have a tripod, as it would have worked nice for the super moon next week.
 
The 100-400 is eminently hand-holdable - I take my Mk ii (often with an extender) out most days when walking the dog for a good hour or more.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone it is much appreciated.
 
My first choice would be 100-400 II. However there is no reason why any modern Canon L telephoto won't deliver the goods. I have 70-200 f/4 IS and 400/5.6L and that also works neatly. I didn't buy them at once so if I had to buy new today it will be 100-400 II mainly for convenience reasons.
 
Would agree with the above comments, first choice would be the 100-400mm mark ll lens. I would certainly not class it as a "mainly tripod lens due to weight".
 
jerry12953 said:
I believe the 70-300 will work with a Kenko converter. Might be worth looking in to....
Click to expand...

Wow thank you very much for that Jerry, that is extremely useful.

LongLensPhotography said:
My first choice would be 100-400 II. However there is no reason why any modern Canon L telephoto won't deliver the goods. I have 70-200 f/4 IS and 400/5.6L and that also works neatly. I didn't buy them at once so if I had to buy new today it will be 100-400 II mainly for convenience reasons.
Click to expand...

AllyB999 said:
Would agree with the above comments, first choice would be the 100-400mm mark ll lens. I would certainly not class it as a "mainly tripod lens due to weight".
Click to expand...

I would love to get the 100-400 II, but sadly the price would take some saving as I wish to get myself another portrait lens for the collection, something like the Tamron 24-70 2.8, so figured for about the £600 region, I could pick up a 100-400 MK1
 
Jwar1976 said:
so figured for about the £600 region, I could pick up a 100-400 MK1
Click to expand...

Don't. No really don't go near it. They are about as different as Angus sirloin and dead horsemeat. They are near useless at long end while IS is so out of date it barely does anything. Better get 400mm prime.
 
You could pick up a second hand Tamron 150-600mm for the money you want to spend. Have one myself and can manage to hand hold it all day, just takes a bit of getting used to. For the money it is a cracking lens. In fact one for sale in the classifieds for £540 delivered and described as in mint condition.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
I believe the 70-300 will work with a Kenko converter. Might be worth looking in to....
Click to expand...

I use a Kenko 1.4 TC with the Canon 70-200 f4L (non IS).

I'm very pleased with the results so far (not good in low light, without a flash), athough pixel peepers might not be ☺
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Don't. No really don't go near it. They are about as different as Angus sirloin and dead horsemeat. They are near useless at long end while IS is so out of date it barely does anything. Better get 400mm prime.
Click to expand...

I knew the IS system was old, but haven't heard of it being that band, I will check the cost of the 400mm prime

AllyB999 said:
You could pick up a second hand Tamron 150-600mm for the money you want to spend. Have one myself and can manage to hand hold it all day, just takes a bit of getting used to. For the money it is a cracking lens. In fact one for sale in the classifieds for £540 delivered and described as in mint condition.
Click to expand...

I will see if I can have a hold of that in the shop, it does look a brilliant lens but a friend of mine has recently sold it due it being too heavy and he is pretty strong.

RIR said:
I use a Kenko 1.4 TC with the Canon 70-200 f4L (non IS).

I'm very pleased with the results so far (not good in low light, without a flash), athough pixel peepers might not be ☺
Click to expand...

I have heard a lot of good things about the 70-200L both IS & non IS version
 
I have 400 f5.6 prime, 100-400 mk 1 and 70-200 f4 is they are all good, so not sure why anyone would say any of them are rubbish. The 70-200 f4 takes a 1.4 extender well and tbh I only got the 400 for a bit more length (5D3 body). Then I'll bought the longer zoom for air shows. All 3 are fine lenses imo, if you can try them and see what suits your needs rather than be guided by an internet forum
Matt
 
I have to agree with MatBin - my 100-400 mk i was definitely not as good as my current Mk ii, but was still a cracking lens - sharp throughout its length and I found the IS useful as well. I have to admit to missing the push-pull which enabled much faster zooming from one end of the range to the other than I can manage twisting the Mk ii.
 
MatBin said:
I have 400 f5.6 prime, 100-400 mk 1 and 70-200 f4 is they are all good, so not sure why anyone would say any of them are rubbish. The 70-200 f4 takes a 1.4 extender well and tbh I only got the 400 for a bit more length (5D3 body). Then I'll bought the longer zoom for air shows. All 3 are fine lenses imo, if you can try them and see what suits your needs rather than be guided by an internet forum
Matt
Click to expand...

I do understand what you are getting at, but it is always good to hear others experiences with certain lenses, kinda like a short version of a review magazine.

MadWoman said:
I have to agree with MatBin - my 100-400 mk i was definitely not as good as my current Mk ii, but was still a cracking lens - sharp throughout its length and I found the IS useful as well. I have to admit to missing the push-pull which enabled much faster zooming from one end of the range to the other than I can manage twisting the Mk ii.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that information :). I see that some togs are selling their Sigma 80-400 EX OS & a Sigma 150-500 OS HSM. I didn't even know that these lens were in existence, probably due to being within a discontinued line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top