p.1 #1 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
I am considering what lens to get next as I am going to be putting cash aside for this for a little while.
I was considering the 100-400 4.5-5.6L but then I considered I would get similar aperture limits at 400mm with the 70-200 2.8L if I put a 2X Teleconverter on it.
I am just considering my options, and I think despite being around $1000 more all up for the kit with TC, it would probably provide a better shot than the 100-400...
What are your thoughts? Anyone made this purchase willing to chime in with their views?
p.1 #2 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
Forget 2X - what do you really need? 200mm max or 400mm max? I've had both and for my needs (wildlife/birds) it was a no brainer. However, its hard to say any more not knowing what you want the lens for?
p.1 #3 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
Mostly for wildlife.
I was shooting the other day with my 24-105, and just getting close enough to pickup anything of detail was spooking the animals.
I am not 100% though on if I actually want to shoot wildlife just yet though, I am thinking perhaps I might be better off scrapping the idea of either and just shooting more with what I have got and see what comes of it...
p.1 #4 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
Lunchb0x8 wrote:
Mostly for wildlife.
I was shooting the other day with my 24-105, and just getting close enough to pickup anything of detail was spooking the animals.
I am not 100% though on if I actually want to shoot wildlife just yet though, I am thinking perhaps I might be better off scrapping the idea of either and just shooting more with what I have got and see what comes of it...
p.1 #7 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
Do you want 200 or 400?
That is the question you need to answer. I have both the 70-200 2.8 II and the 100-400. I do not have a 2x TC. I had the 70-200 before I had the 100-400. I read lots of post on the web, both here and elsewhere, the consensus was; if you need 400 then buy 400. As good as the new 70-200 is, even the old 100-400 is better at 400.
p.1 #8 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
That was one consideration I had come to think of, that a lens built for use at 400 is probably going to shoot better looking images at 400 then a 200 with a converter.
My main reason for considering the 70-200 was the wider aperture throughout.
I am thinking I will put off buying anything until I figure out exactly what I need it for, Until my work is limited by my gear, I think I should be fine with what I have.
p.1 #9 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
I have a 100-400L that I use almost exclusively. I shoot almost only wildlife and its a wonderful lens.
My friend Joel has a 70-200 2.8 IS2 and 2x Canon version 2 TC. My lens is a bit better than his BUT if you are just dabbling in wildlife then perhaps the 70-200 would be even more versatile for you for other purposes like indoor sports and portraits. It is quite a bit more expensive though since you can get a 100-400 for about $1500 new and the 70-200 IS2 + a 2x TC will cost you over $2600.
p.1 #10 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
I have everything (lenses + TC) you have mentioned but it really comes down to what you will be shooting the most.
If you will mainly shoot up to 200mm but on occasion shoot wildlife, the 70-200 +2x TC is the way I would go. The reason being that the 70-200 is one of Canons best lenses. I hope you do realize that by adding a TC you lose f-stops. and some quickness in AF.
If you mainly shoot wildlife, you will need 400mm and sometimes more so I would suggest going with 100-400.
p.1 #11 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
OK, I think I have reached a better understanding of it.
I was aware of the Aperture loss, but not so much about the AF.
Now that I know about losing some AF speed, I think the 100-400 (despite it's slightly worse aperture) is probably the better option to reach the shots I am missing out on.
p.1 #12 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
Lunchb0x8 wrote:
OK, I think I have reached a better understanding of it.
I was aware of the Aperture loss, but not so much about the AF.
Now that I know about losing some AF speed, I think the 100-400 (despite it's slightly worse aperture) is probably the better option to reach the shots I am missing out on.
p.1 #13 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
Sjjindra wrote:
Since you have the 5DIII, if you get the 100-400, you have an option of adding a 1.4X TC in the future for 560mm at F8.
Is my maths faulty? The 1.4x converter adds one F stop, the 2x converter adds 2 stops, right? Therefore the 100-400 should drop to F6 with the 1.4 and F8 with the x2 so, with the new firmware one ought to be able to put a x2 on it and still get autofocus
Niall
p.1 #14 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
Having both options, I can tell you that the 70-200 II + 2xTC III is noticeably heavier than the 100-400.
@ 400mm since both start off at f/5.6, they come out equal with ISO and shutter speed.
@400mm AF will favor the 100-400, though I think IS will favor the 70-200.
@400mm, all things considered, I think the 100-400 will have the edge, but the 70-200 II + 2xTC III will come out more than acceptable, while having all the attributes the 100-400 doesn't have.
I bought the 100-400 for its attributes at the time and the 70-200 II for it's stand alone qualities, as well as the 2xTC III for its independent qualities and uses, so I am very happy to have all options, as I would find it very difficult to decide between them.
I'd say the 100-400 is the easier option at the present, and you will certainly be happy with it, but because the 70-200 II is such an outstanding lens, I doubt you will be able to get it out of your head and you will eventually acquire it.
p.1 #15 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
nrferguson wrote:
Is my maths faulty? The 1.4x converter adds one F stop, the 2x converter adds 2 stops, right? Therefore the 100-400 should drop to F6 with the 1.4 and F8 with the x2 so, with the new firmware one ought to be able to put a x2 on it and still get autofocus
Niall
...afraid your math is faulty.
You multiply the lense's native widest aperture by the multiple of the TC, so in the case of the 100-400 with a max aperture @ 400mm of f/5.6, 1.4 x 5.6 = f/8 and 2 x 5.6 = f/11.
p.1 #18 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
...push/pull, natural and easy as pie. Think I've had mine eight years and never have understood anybody having a problem with it, other than some need to find fault with things or lacking adaptability.
p.1 #19 · What to get? 100-400L 4.5-5.6 or 70-200L 2.8 with 2X extender?
I can't find it now but someone did a head to head with the 70-200 2.8L II + 2xII and the 100-400 4-5.6L.
The 100-400 won hands down for both IQ and AF speed. Wasn't even close. IS was better on the 70-200, but given the rest, I would not choose this combination over the 100-400. I have both the lens and the TC -- I have used them in the past... not totally happy with results.
That said, I prefer the 400 5.6L. Much sharper and much faster AF than the 100-400 that I had and sold. If AF speed and tack-sharpness matters more to you than zoom and IS, then consider this.
Another choice is the 70-300 F4-5.6L IS. The IS and IQ are both better than the 100-400, but no compatibility with Canon TCs.
Money-wise... for the price of a 70-200 2.8 II + 2x TC III ($2648) you can get the 70-300 4-5.6L AND the 400 5.6L ($2618).
In short, a 70-200 2.8 II + 2x TC III makes no sense, financially or otherwise as a purposeful purchase choice.
