Alistair, I use the 70-200 quite a bit and would continue with the 2.8 without the TC for all of those times. I am just thinking of adding the TC for the times I would use the 400 which is not very often.
Rceres, Yes my technique could be better. No doubt and I should practice it more. I have been shooting for years and do hold the camera with the left hand on the lens, right hand holding the body. I work on breathing. I believe I just have an issue where I flinch when I go to hit the shutter release. I'm kinda shakey . This is not an issue with smaller lenses and I believe it has to do with the way I have to hold the 400. It may still be an issue with the 70-200 2.8 or the 300. I am hoping a faster lens with IS will get me better images.
When I rent the 70-200 /2.8 IS I will know for sure. I have no real issues with the 70-200 /4 and am hoping the same will be true with the 2.8. I really do not need a reach past 200 all the much. The 400 does not get used much and my feeling is the limeted time I need it I could get by with the 70-200 & TC.
Alistair Watson wrote:
I really would not buy a lens expecting to use it with a TC nearly all the time. I use the 70-200/2.8 IS for alot of sport and motorsport stuff but IMO for anything moving quickly and in an unpredictable way, the 1.4 TC just dulls AF performance too much for my liking.
Seems that the 300mm f/2.8 IS does well with the 1.4x TC. I'll be using it that way a lot in the Fall for the Head of the Charles Regatta (here in Cambridge, MA), albeit on a monopod.
300mm 2.8 is out of my pockets reach. This is a focal length I do not use much. The more I type this the more I am leaning towards the 70-200 2.8 IS. The f4 version of that lens I have and use allot. Adding a TC to the 2.8 may cover my needs albeit with a TC and a shorter overall reach than 400.
Alistair Watson wrote:
I really would not buy a lens expecting to use it with a TC nearly all the time. I use the 70-200/2.8 IS for alot of sport and motorsport stuff but IMO for anything moving quickly and in an unpredictable way, the 1.4 TC just dulls AF performance too much for my liking.
jamesf99 wrote:
Seems that the 300mm f/2.8 IS does well with the 1.4x TC. I'll be using it that way a lot in the Fall for the Head of the Charles Regatta (here in Cambridge, MA), albeit on a monopod.
With the 300/2.8 IS, other than a change in the max aperture with the 1.4x you would never know you had a TC on in the first place. I shall correct myself and say I wouldn't buy a zoom lens expecting to use a 1.4x TC on it nearly all the time.
I have been using 100-400L for about a year (every second weakend or so).
My finding are:
1. Monopod with such a large lens is useless - you have to swing along with your lens to in order to move the picture up or down. It is crazy noncence. Tripod is another matter.
2. Desipte the IS the lens had comparatively slow AF and so it had missed many subjects..
3. It is very difficult to handhold the lens.
4. The contrast was not impressive at all.
I was generally dissapointed with the performance of the lens so I have switched to 400 5.6L. NOW I can handhold the lens easily and make many great pictures even though the lens lacks IS
Well, I just talked with someone at my local shop and reserved a 70-200 f/2.8 IS for next Friday. I explained my situation and the guy there (Penn Camera in Vienna VA) had an interesting idea I will try. He thought the longer lens may be giving me fits on the 40D because of the lighter weight of the body compared to a 1 series. He suggested adding some weight to the bottom of the 40D via the tripod socket to see if that helped. He also offered to let me try a 1 series in the store when I pick up the rental. I'm not in the market for a 1 series so holding one could scare me . I will try some washers and a screw in the tripod socket though. Hey, sometimes the littlest things actually do work... The weight I don't think has ever been my issue it is the length/balance/shakes I have problems with....
grizz9 wrote:
Well, I just talked with someone at my local shop and reserved a 70-200 f/2.8 IS for next Friday. I explained my situation and the guy there (Penn Camera in Vienna VA) had an interesting idea I will try. He thought the longer lens may be giving me fits on the 40D because of the lighter weight of the body compared to a 1 series. He suggested adding some weight to the bottom of the 40D via the tripod socket to see if that helped. He also offered to let me try a 1 series in the store when I pick up the rental. I'm not in the market for a 1 series so holding one could scare me . I will try some washers and a screw in the tripod socket though. Hey, sometimes the littlest things actually do work... The weight I don't think has ever been my issue it is the length/balance/shakes I have problems with.......Show more →
You may want to update your profile. I was just going to comment that your problems might relate to the very light weight of the 300D your profile says you are using.
But the point does remain somewhat valid with the 40D. A grip will probably help. For example, I have a 100-400 and I think it balances perfectly with my gripped 40D. I can shoot it handheld all day long.
Contrary to a previous post, the 100-400 has got to be one of the best lenses I own. Not one-dimensionally on a sharpness basis, but for over all flexibility, usability, and downright fun, it ranks right up there. My only regret is that I didn't buy one sooner than I did and as much as I love the 70-200, I use the 100-400 far more.
Regarding weight, I'd try a grip as opposed to simply adding weight. See if you can rent a grip vs. the 1 series. While the camera becomes more difficult to carry all day, the better balance and portrait mode shooting options are superior IMO.
James, I already have the grip on the 40D. My feeling on the 100-400 is that I would have the same problems with it as I do with the 400 when the 100-400 is stretched to 400. I am going to compare all of the lenses I have mentioned and the 100-400 when I go to the rental place. Thanks....
jamesf99 wrote:
Contrary to a previous post, the 100-400 has got to be one of the best lenses I own. Not one-dimensionally on a sharpness basis, but for over all flexibility, usability, and downright fun, it ranks right up there. My only regret is that I didn't buy one sooner than I did and as much as I love the 70-200, I use the 100-400 far more.
I agree 100% I just got my 100-400 about two weeks ago. It is (sort of) a replacement for my Sigma 120-300 f2.8, at least as a walkaround wildlife and zoo type lens, but since that isn't exactly an upgrade or even a lateral move, my expectations were pretty low. The 100-400 has so far exceeded those expectations in every respect. Sharpness is not amazing like a high end prime, but it is still far better than I was expecting. Color and contrast have so far been excellent. And as I said before, (for me at least) it balances absolutely perfectly with my gripped 40D, and I can handhold it all day, something I definitely could NOT do with the 120-300.
grizz9 wrote:
James, I already have the grip on the 40D. My feeling on the 100-400 is that I would have the same problems with it as I do with the 400 when the 100-400 is stretched to 400. I am going to compare all of the lenses I have mentioned and the 100-400 when I go to the rental place. Thanks....
Hmmm, unfortunately I have no experience with the 400 5.6 so I can't say how they compare in terms of balance and weight, but for what it is worth, I will say one more time that I really think the 100-400 balances extremely well with my gripped 40D, even fully zoomed. I balance the tripod collar on my palm with the base of my palm against/holding the base of the camera, and that is very very steady. ymmv, of course....
Povilas wrote:
I have been using 100-400L for about a year (every second weakend or so).
My finding are:
1. Monopod with such a large lens is useless - you have to swing along with your lens to in order to move the picture up or down. It is crazy noncence. Tripod is another matter.
2. Desipte the IS the lens had comparatively slow AF and so it had missed many subjects..
3. It is very difficult to handhold the lens.
4. The contrast was not impressive at all.
I was generally dissapointed with the performance of the lens so I have switched to 400 5.6L. NOW I can handhold the lens easily and make many great pictures even though the lens lacks IS
Well I cant comment on the 100-400; but I am a big fan of using a monopod with my long glass. Many folks have problems with a monopod because of the way they set it up. I went through several stages before I reached the setup I have now.
I started off with a Wimberley Sidekick on my monopod. This setup worked quite well, but it was heavier and too bulky to suit me. My RRS BH40 was a little lighter; but balance was a problem.
Then I read the article at RRS about their monopod solution. For those of you expecting an expensive head get ready for a surprise. The Manfrotto #3232) costs about $US30 shipped, but you do need to buy a a couple of parts from your local hardware store (I go to Lowes) which might cost another dollar. I just used the same clamp I was using on my tripod with my long glass (I use a Bogen 3421; but an Arca-Swiss clamp and plate would work equally well.
RRS has started selling a new item they call a high capacity monopod solution for $US260 or so, but I have been using my setup which they call the low capacity solution for over three years with no problem.
As a rule I shoot my 400/5.6 hand held; but have used it with this setup. On the other hand I almost always use this monopod setup with my 500/f4. It probably gives me 2-3 stops when I shoot with it. It also allows me to rest my tired old arms by supporting most of the weight of the 500/1d2, and it is light enough that I can lift the both the camera/lens and monopod off the ground and shoot hand held if I want too. I sometimes will rotate the lens collar to the side and lock the monopod parallel to the lens if I want to only shoot hand held.
You can tell from the length of this reply that I really like this monopod setup and highly suggest it to anyone who uses a monopod.
By the by, even though I use a 400/5.6 and not the 100-400 I think the zoom is a fine lens.
I wouldn't recommend the 70-300 DO IS I had it and always found it soft. I sold it and replaced with a 70-200 F4L IS which is fabulous and still sharper than the DO even with a 1.4 converter
. This is not an issue with smaller lenses and I believe it has to do with the way I have to hold the 400. It may still be an issue with the 70-200 2.8 or the 300. I am hoping a faster lens with IS will get me better images. 
This is a focal length I do not use much. The more I type this the more I am leaning towards the 70-200 2.8 IS. The f4 version of that lens I have and use allot. Adding a TC to the 2.8 may cover my needs albeit with a TC and a shorter overall reach than 400. 