Big Canon lens

[Funkstar]

I'm not going to rush out and buy this tomorrow or anything, it's jsut something I've been thinking about and would like some opinions.

I wanted a Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens for a while. Seems like a pretty good value L class lens.

However, I've also seen the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM Lens.

The latter is a couple of hundred more expensive, and it has a shorter range, but is a good deal faster.

What are the thoughts of this with a 2x teleconverter?

I know it a good amount more in total, but is it worth it?

I know it's all probably wasted on my 350D at the moment, but i do hope to more up to a 40D (or perhaps a 50D is a procrastinate long enough ) and would like to buy decent glass while I can (sort of) afford it.

What are your thoughts at this end of the market? Anything else I should look at?

[stroberaver]

I know it's all probably wasted on my 350D at the moment

Why would that be?

Bear in mind that I'm not a Canon user so have absolutely no experience of the lenses in question. But the first thing I'd ask is, do you need the range of the 400mm (640mm with Canon's 1.6 crop factor)? If not then the 70-200 would be a much more beneficial purchase, imho. But it all depends on what you'd really be using the telezoom for.

[theuncharmed]

Can I ask what would you use a 100 - 400 for? That's a big beast and in my opinion, quite a specific lens.

My friend Jon uses a 70 - 200 2.8 IS and he's dabbled with a teleconvertor and has had some good results. Whether they are to the same standard as the 100 - 400 is another matter (I personally thought they were spot on). Of course if you do go this route then it also leaves you with faster, higher quality glass and more flexibility.

70 - 200 2.8 IS is a lovely lens too

[mmh]

My dad not long got a 100-400 canon lense... and its a beast...

Heavy, cumbersum, but highly accurate and produces a nice clear photo.

My dad does alot of wildlife where it comes into its own, it would however, be useless for stuff i shoot.

[BUFF]

the 100-400mm IS is probably the single most common lens used by aviation enthusiasts in the UK.

[Bobster]

i recently used a 70-200 2.8 IS at a wedding, borrowed it from the other tog i was shooting with, i have to say it didn't suit my shooting style, i would have gotten better shots with my 70-200 Sigma..

what do you want to shoot?

this was taken with my Sigma 70-200 with a 2x tele on (with a 2x tele, you loose 2 stops of light and 2 stops on the lens, so you're shooting a max of f5.6 with another 2 stops lost in light..)


i'll happily shoot with a 2x tele on in the right circumstances..

[shiato storm]

i have both 70-200 2.8 IS and the 100-400...the former is a great lens and suits me to have it in the bag pretty much all of the time (plus its weather sealed), the other is much longer and a range I don't always need at hand so tend to leave it for more specific use i.e. wildlife or sports. both weigh a fair bit, something worth considering on the 350D, I have used the 100-400 on a 350d and it felt somewhat overbalanced(!!) by the lens.
the 2.8 vs 4-5.6 is a significant step, on a 1d body such as I have, the camera uses more sensors to focus with thanks to more light, thats not to say a lens of this quality its lost on cameras further down the chain (which are becoming more and more capable all the time) but that its an advantage for sure. manual focusing is easier as the viewfinder is many times brighter (2.8 to 4 is half, 4 to 5.6 is half again...) and the dof is excellent. and I really love it the longer 100-400 comes into its own at the limits of its range. a 70-200 with an 2x extender doesn't produce the same iq as the single lens set up, thats just the way it is. the 100-400 is a push-pull zoom which some people hate, it doesn't bother me at all personally, its a lens that has a purpose and functions in a specific way ("deal with it!" in other words). getting good glass should always be the priority, cameras will always be updated/upgraded/changed/messed with etc. but the glass will always be good if you choose carefully...
i guess it comes down to what purpose you have in mind - if you need the reach then there's no question.

[Bobster]

i have to say the quality with a x2 tele isn't that bad, i've sold prints that i've shot with the 70-200 with the x2 tele @ 30x20" and they came out looking great..

i've even shot a 400L with x2 Tele (manual focus only) and again results have been great

[Saracen]

One option is to consider the 70-200 F4 IS instead of the 2.8.

The F4 is excellent in IQ, and a good deal lighter (and rather smaller) than the 2.8IS.

So the question then becomes .... do you need the extra stop on the 2.8 or not? If not, then you might be putting the F4 and the TC up against the 100-400, and then the cost is about the same.

Of course, the 100-400 means you don't have to add the TC for the extra reach, and there's less lens-changing and so less chance for dust getting in, but then unless doing wildlife or aviation, you've got the benefit of the extra quality and reduced weight of the 70-200 F4.

To me, the way it stacks up is that if you NEED to extra speed of the 2.8, then the decision is made for you .... the 100-400 isn't the right option.

If you don't need that speed, the F4 and TC is a better combination to consider as an alternative to the 100-400, both because it's cheaper and because it's lighter.

But that's just me, of course.


Oh, and if money is a major factor, don't forget the non-IS versions are still about. Maybe a 100-400 and a 70-200 non-IS would be feasible? If you bought the 70-200 f4 non-IS, it wouldn't cost hugely more than the 2x TC. There's only a couple of hundred in it.

[BUFF]

If you don't need that speed, the F4 and TC is a better combination to consider as an alternative to the 100-400, both because it's cheaper and because it's lighter.

except that will be f8 & your AF won't work ...

[Saracen]

except that will be f8 & your AF won't work ...

Good point. Though it does depend on the camera used, but it's the case with Funkstar's 350D .... and assuming it's the 2x to get the 400mm. It will AF with the 1.4x, but he'll only get 280mm (though with a 450mm-ish field of view, compared to the 640mm FoV with the 100-400 on a Canon APS-C).

But ...... good point.


EDIT - Also ..... I was told, years ago, that AF wouldn't work on my venerable old 75-300 IS and 35mm body with a (non-Canon) 2x TC ...... but obviously nobody told the camera or lens, because most of the time, it worked anyway.

But I certainly wouldn't buy now on the basis that something that shouldn't work would anyway.

[Bobster]

sure if you get the right conditions AF might work as advertised, but i bet the AF was really slow and hunted?

i remember testing a 2x tele with my Sigma 70-300, and because of the subject it focused, not first time, took a bit of hunting, but it locked..

with enough practice you can get pretty decent shots using manual focusing, i'm prolly a little rusty by now, been nearly 8 months since i used it last..