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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality
  
 
mxrider641
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality


Looking for the best bang for the buck route to 400mm - Of course a 400 2.8 is the dream, but out of the price range at the moment. I have shot with a Canon 100-400 and have been pleased with the results. Costs range from ~$1200 or so used to $1459 new...and that is a serious consideration. My other thought is my 200/2.8 ver1 with a 2X converter on it. I currently use it with a Kenko 1.4x and I pleased with the image quality (about as sharp with the tele as my 70-200 is without it), but I do miss focus sometimes with the 7D. My question is...how would the 200 with either a Canon or aftermarket 2X focus, and how is the image quality compared to the 100-400? I went with the Kenko 1.4 based upon some suggestions here, would also be interested in 2X suggestions/thoughts.
Thanks!



Feb 26, 2013 at 09:02 PM
far148
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality


What about the 400 F/5.6?


Steven



Feb 26, 2013 at 09:06 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality


Given that you are looking at a 200 with a 2xTC then zooming is not a big concern so I would just get the 400/5.6. Light, built in hood, fast AF, sharp.


Feb 26, 2013 at 09:25 PM
gocolts
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality


ggreene wrote:
Given that you are looking at a 200 with a 2xTC then zooming is not a big concern so I would just get the 400/5.6. Light, built in hood, fast AF, sharp.


Agreed. I love mine.



Feb 26, 2013 at 09:29 PM
_SBS_
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality


Been thinking about this myself. Cost being a factor the 70-200 x 2xtc seems the best route if one already has a 70-200 at hand. But even the mk2 takes a small image hit and a bigger af hit although the internet seems to say its doable.

Counting it out at the moment the 400 seems to be a hair sharper, though some will argue, then the 100-400. The af is a bit speedier as well. And its a bit lighter then the 100-400. MFD is further though.

For birding it seems like the perfect lens but I still keep coming back to the versatility of the 100-400. Like you i have a 70-200 2.8 v1 and always have a 1.4 (kenko pro 300) glued to it when going out in the wild. 99% of the time I am at 200mm. But still I keep thinking what if? If there is something closer... I want to start shooting childrens soccer matches (this may be weird since I dont have a kid)...

For the slightly less af speed, and arguably less sharp @ 400, I am thinking the 100-400 is the better choice. Even if its at 400mm 99% of the time it doesnt have to be,

BTW I would wait till around March 20th or so till you make either purchase. The suppliers will start lowering the prices a bit more (no one is at manufactures minimum price yet) when they notice time is running out and they still have stock.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/



Feb 26, 2013 at 11:12 PM
JohnBrose
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality


You could also consider the sigma 120-300 f2.8 with a 1.4 on in would give you a 420 f4 and you can maybe find a used one in your price range. I would go with a 100-400 over a 200 with a 2x or the straight 400. Because of it's quality, stabilization and flexibility.


Feb 26, 2013 at 11:19 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality


The 300f4 is another option.

I had the 400 f5.6 and it is a great lens, even takes a 1.4X very well. I used to do BIF with this on a 20D and taped pins to make it AF at f8.

I got the 500f4 (selling the 400) and used it for 5 years and just sold the 500 last year to finance landscape lenses. I always figured I would get one long lens to replace it.

I considered the 70-200 f2.8 mk2 with a 2X. But the 400 is cheaper and probably sharper. I loved mine until I got the 500.

I can tell you that if you need more than 200, even 700 is not enough. I never considered the 100-400 range very useful, it would be at 400 all the time and usually still too short.

The reason to consider the 300f4 is because it could get to 600 f8, or 420 f5.6 and has IS, although IS is not a big deal for me. I shoot hand held at such high shutter speed that IS is not much benefit. Or I shoot from a tripod with gimbal.




Feb 27, 2013 at 12:13 AM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality


I've the 300 f4L IS and it not only works well with the 1.4x T/C II to get you 400mm, it's MFD is much better then the 400 and I find it a joy to use with extension tubes for close-up flora shots.

Given the 500mm and up teles are out of my budget range I might pickup a used 400 f5.6L down the road. Secretly I'm hoping Canon will re-design it and add IS to it...that would be fantastic as I use IS a lot.



Feb 27, 2013 at 12:44 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality


I'd be inclined to the 100-400, not the least of which for the IS.

I love the 28-300 IS and use the full range, so I have no doubt I'd use all the 100 to 400 for general photography. Coupled with a 24-105, this would make a great set for travel and sightseeing, and really not weigh too much, considering the range.

Of course, if you are looking for a specialized lens to use for super long distance, then there are other options in primes to give you best results. But for a generalist, it would be hard to beat the 100-400.



Feb 27, 2013 at 01:00 AM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality


I like big non flying animals like moose and bears and wolves.

Before I got my 500 f4 (and them my 600 f4 v2) I had a 70-200 2.8 is v1 and a 100-400. I still have them. I would always take the 100-400 over the 70-200 because I think the 100-400 has better quality than the 70-200 with 1.4x and more reach.

I think the 100-400 should be the lens you get if you only get one long lens. It is light and versatile. Unless of course you are shooting birds, then get the 400 5.6. Or if you can afford it 500 f4 but even then you will need the 100-400 for close in pictures.

Scott



Feb 28, 2013 at 03:25 AM
uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality


At one point several years ago, I simultaneously owned a 100-400, a 400/5.6, a 200/2.8, and a 70-200/2.8 IS (original version).

The image quality of the 400/5.6 was very marginally better than that of the 100-400, but, to me, the difference was not nearly enough to offset the advantages that the 100-400 gives with the flexibility of the zoom and IS. Noticeably worse in image quality was the 200/2.8 with a 2x attached, and the 70-200/2.8 IS with a 2x was still further behind.

I consider either the 200/2.8 with a 2x or the 70-200 with a 2x to be acceptable solutions only if you are talking about very occasional use and only if you have no other way to get to 400 mm. And, even if the 2x III and 70-200/2.8 IS II are improved, that combination still would not be my preferred way to get to 400 mm. If I planned to spend a lot of time needing a 400 mm lens, my choice would be to buy a 400 mm lens or, at a minimum, to buy a lens that would get me to 400 mm with a 1.4x. Even with the improvements in the latest generation of extenders, there is still a big difference in the image quality hit and AF response hit that you take when you move from using a 1.4x to using a 2x. Again, any solution that requires a 2x, for me, would have to be a last resort solution when I had no other way to get to the focal length I needed and for occasional use only.

Les



Feb 28, 2013 at 03:39 AM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password