Sell my 70-200 F4 and 100-400 for a Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II USM plus telecover

[D-pearce92]

Hi all

I recently purchursed a 100-400 and am not completely happy. The last few events at Lydden have been really dull days which hasn't helped the 100-400 as I know thats it achilles heel so i'm thinking about selling both my 70-200 f4 and 100-400 to fund the 70-200 f2.8 after looking at Renis post I can see how much better the 2.8 is in really rubbish light..
I've read all the reviews and I know its an incredible lens but im wondering how well does it take teleconverters in particular the 1.4x TC and 2x extender. Im not sure how much I am going to use the 2x if I was to as i find that Im reducing the 100-400 down to 300-350 anyway and with the 7D I can always crop should I need to.
The post that is to blame for me wanting to upgrade to the 70-200 f2.8
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=471003

me
Dex

 

[David Stallard]

Dex - I sold my 100-400 and bought the 70-200 2.8 mkii and hand on heart it was the best decision I made. I use both the 1.4 and the 2x on my 1D and it hasn't let me down once - I have tried it on Cory's 7D and it favours the 1.4 out of the 2 for motor racing due to af speed.

So my answer is. . . . . get the 70-200 mkii and the 1.4 mkiii

.DAVID.

 

[RichardTaylor]

I have a mate who was using a Canon 70-200 F2.8 (I can't remember which one) with a 1.4 TC, to shoot motor sport and was happy with the results, however after trying my 100-400 purchased one because he liked the versatility of the 100-400. Normally, except, sometimes, for the last race of the day the light levels are reasonable.
I do not own a 70-200 F2.8 (but do own the 70-200 F4).

 

[sambloxxy]

I use the 70-200 2.8 mkii with a 1.4 on a 7d; its a great combination. I've used a 2x but i find you can really only get high iq at f/8 and smaller, and the af struggles a lot more. With the 1.4x the af seems pretty much uneffected.

 

[desantnik]

Never liked my (Nikon) 70-200 with a TC on it.

I think I've only ever taken one shot with it that I really liked.

TC's IMHO aren't really good ideas for zooms.

The setup you really want to try and get to is a Canon 70-200 2.8 and a Canon 300 f4 (or 2.8 if you can afford it!) and a 1.4x TC to give you 420mm for ultimate reach. If you have a Nikon, add the 1.7x TC to the bag too (its pretty good, unless its really dark and gloomy) - not an option for Canon people though!

Thats the pretty standard motorsport getup, you can try all the other options, but that combo is the winning one - the one used by most media guys...

Chuck in a flash and a short lens for "scrum work" (something that will go to ~20mm at the wide end) and thats the final piece you need for pitlane/paddock/podium/press conference.

 

[Az_GTi]

This is a classic debate. Seems as though 100-400 copies vary. I had a good one, was very happy with it and for motorsport being able to "react" quickly with the push-pull zoom made it really effective at capturing "moments".

I sold mine and ended up with a 120-300. But I also have a 70-200 2.8 II which is awesome but with TC's it's noticeably not so good. 1.4 is ok but x2 I don't like. For me 100-400 was better than 70-200 with x2.

P.S I was using mostly on 7D.

 

[gary43]

I've had numerous copies all of these lenses and have kept a 70-200f2.8ISLII plus TCs.

My current view is that the 70-200 zoom gives a stunning 70f2.8, 100f2.8, 135f2.8, 200f2.8, 280f4 (with x1.4TC) and 400f5.6 (with x2TC) all with 4(ish) stops of IS. This is half a camera bagful of lenses in one manageable body plus two tiny TCs. Optically, the 70-200f2.8ISLII plus x2TC is as sharp as the 100-400, or as close as makes no difference. I adore the 100-400 and the 70-200f4 lenses but from a practical perpective why would you not change ? I seriously doubt you will be unhappy with the 70-200f2.8ISLII should you go that way. The AF is slowed down a bit with the TCs onboard but the focus limiter helps there.

Good luck with your choice though.

Gary