Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400
  
 
pizdets17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


What do you guys think would work better on my 5d2?


Apr 04, 2012 at 12:13 AM
pizdets17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


PS - I already have the 70-200, thinking about selling my 100L macro as I havent used it..


Apr 04, 2012 at 12:30 AM
GCasey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


Both lenses work exceptionally well. Both are top quality. Both will work well with your camera. It's not a case of either/or.

It depends on what you want to shoot. Do you photograph inside? Portraits? Do you photograph wildlife? Sports? Scenics? Landscapes?

How much "reach" do you need? What kind of photos do you want to be able to take?

Take a look at the forums that talk about the type of photos you shoot; find photos that are similar to what you what to shoot and see what others are using for similar images.




Apr 04, 2012 at 12:48 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


I like 100-400 better particularly for BIF photography, although 4 stop IS in 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII does help. The older zoom IQ is just a bit better corrected (bokeh, specular highlights, busy background blur) and a bit sharper. Also, 100-400 is no AF speed demon, yet it does focus faster/better than 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII + 2xTC.

Mind you, the new zoom alone is an exceptional lens, and that factor might swing one away from 100-400, if you can make just a little allowance for IQ drop, and if you are not into photographing action at 400mm.

In fact, 100-400 does make a pretty decent BIF lens in very good light, despite its slowness (both aperture and AF drive), on all but the fastest of birds.

Edited on Apr 04, 2012 at 01:01 PM · View previous versions



Apr 04, 2012 at 01:07 AM
Photon
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


What Peter said.
Also, in the way of a particular situation:
If you shoot something like soccer with only one body, the 100-400 is highly useful for the immediate availability of that whole FL range.
If shooting up to 200 mm @ f/2.8 is valuable, that can tip the balance, but remember that you can't suddenly zoom from 70 to 400 with the shorter zoom, you have to mount a TC. Yes, you can pull back as far as 140 mm with the 2X on, but you're stuck with f/5.6, slightly slower AF, and slightly lower quality than you'd get with the 100-400 @ 140 mm (at ~ f/4.5 wide open).



Apr 04, 2012 at 01:23 AM
pizdets17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


I shoot my sons hockey, so the 100-400 would be useless there, thats why I was thinking to just pick up an extender for the 70-200 I already own. Thanks for chiming in guys!


Apr 04, 2012 at 04:14 AM
tshore
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


I had the same questions a couple months back. Had the 70-200 f2.8 isII, and looked at 400mm options for my 7D. I chose to go with the tc for now rather than the 100-400 or 400 f5.6, saving about $1,000. I have since tried the 100-400 and it does lock focus and focus faster than the 200+ 2x tc. It's also lighter, and the push-pull zoom is probably an acquired taste. All in all, though, the 2x tc has worked well while I practice and figure out longer term options.

Samples:




  Canon EOS 7D    342mm    f/5.6    1/4000s    400 ISO    0.0 EV  






  Canon EOS 7D    252mm    f/5.6    1/2500s    400 ISO    +0.7 EV  






  Canon EOS 7D    300mm    f/5.6    1/500s    400 ISO    0.0 EV  




Apr 04, 2012 at 05:31 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



pizdets17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


nothing wrong with those images for sure.


Apr 04, 2012 at 06:00 AM
Will Patterson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


Someone started this same exact thread recently, run a search, it went on for pages and there were lots of examples and feedback.

Basically the synopsis was the extender combo is just as sharp if not sharper than the 100-400, but you take a hit in AF speed (although it's still very good).



Apr 04, 2012 at 12:59 PM
pizdets17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


Thats good news, I can sell my 100L macro and buy somee kenko tubes, a 85 1.8, and a 2x. Sounds like a no brainer to me


Apr 04, 2012 at 07:56 PM
reno.peterson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


pizdets17 wrote:
I shoot my sons hockey, so the 100-400 would be useless there, thats why I was thinking to just pick up an extender for the 70-200 I already own. Thanks for chiming in guys!


How would it be useless?



Apr 04, 2012 at 08:29 PM
pizdets17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


In a hockey rink at f5.6 you might as well shoot a point and shoot. Even at 2.8 and 4000iso in most rinks is bare minimum. At 5.6 you'd be at 6400+ every shot


Apr 04, 2012 at 09:02 PM
pizdets17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


OK, my 100L is sold ( took like 10 min locally lol). So now I need to find a 2x ii or iii, kenko tubes, and an 85 1.8. Got $1000 for the lens so that should be more than enough for those 3 items.


Apr 04, 2012 at 09:04 PM
pizdets17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · 70-200 2.8 IS II w/2x vs100-400


Ok just picked up the extender on the forums here. Thanks again guys, youve been helpful!


Apr 04, 2012 at 11:50 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password