Advice on L glass please!
.
EF 70-200 mm F/2.8L USM plus Extender EF 2X II
Or
EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 L EOS USM IS
I realise that when using the 2x extender, it will increase the effective aperture by 1 2 stops and auto focus will not work below effective aperture of 5.6
I also realise that you can get the 70-200 F/2.8L USM IS but the budget wont run to it.
That said, when working with the 70-200 (without extender) would the wider aperture negate the IS of the 100-400.
Which would you go for? and Why?
Any help / advice will be very much appreciated.
Adrian.
EF 70-200 mm F/2.8L USM plus Extender EF 2X II
Or
EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 L EOS USM IS
I realise that when using the 2x extender, it will increase the effective aperture by 1 2 stops and auto focus will not work below effective aperture of 5.6
I also realise that you can get the 70-200 F/2.8L USM IS but the budget wont run to it.
That said, when working with the 70-200 (without extender) would the wider aperture negate the IS of the 100-400.
Which would you go for? and Why?
Any help / advice will be very much appreciated.
Adrian.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
am in the same dilemer, but i have decided to get them both, 
)
70-200 2.8l is the best zoom lens available, i have read every review/fprum there is on this lens and its simply the best,
100-400 is a mixed bag, mixed reports, lots of good ones and some not so good, nothing to do with the quality or is, but to do with dust and malfunction, all this apart everywhere it creams all over the sigma and other comparisons in speed of af and build quality, not optics though
back to your question
it all depends on your work for the lens, the 70-200 is a far superior lens in that focal range,
look at your expected usage of the lens, +200 is specilised, but if this is where you will be mostley operaing then yes the 100-400 is the best choice, if not then the 70-200 is smaller lighter and a far superior lens
sory if its not a definate answer
steve
)70-200 2.8l is the best zoom lens available, i have read every review/fprum there is on this lens and its simply the best,
100-400 is a mixed bag, mixed reports, lots of good ones and some not so good, nothing to do with the quality or is, but to do with dust and malfunction, all this apart everywhere it creams all over the sigma and other comparisons in speed of af and build quality, not optics though
back to your question
it all depends on your work for the lens, the 70-200 is a far superior lens in that focal range,
look at your expected usage of the lens, +200 is specilised, but if this is where you will be mostley operaing then yes the 100-400 is the best choice, if not then the 70-200 is smaller lighter and a far superior lens
sory if its not a definate answer
steve
Cheers Steve, most work will be up to 200mm and therefore Im leaning toward to 70-200 but I will sometimes need to go beyond this range. My big hesitation is that I have no knowledge of how it will perform with the 2x extender in comparison with the 100-400.
Adrian.
Adrian.
Very tough choice and to make it tougher, I would also consider 300 f4 with 1.4x or the 400 f5.6
I have both the the 70-200 is used far, far more than the 100-400.
I read on Luminous Landscape about a test between the 100-400 and the 70-200 IS at 200 with a x2. The 100-400 came out on top but not by much.
If you're going down the 70-200 road, then save up for the IS version, you won't regret it.
As you mentioned, you normally work around 200mm and will occasionally want a bit more reach. Then why not settle for the 70-200 and 1.4x. This is an excellent combination and one I use a lot. I notice from your portfolio that you like to isolate subjects and the 70-200 is so much better at this than the 100-400.
As you've already got the 16-35L and 24-70L it would be a shame not to add the 70-200L IS!
I have both the the 70-200 is used far, far more than the 100-400.
I read on Luminous Landscape about a test between the 100-400 and the 70-200 IS at 200 with a x2. The 100-400 came out on top but not by much.
If you're going down the 70-200 road, then save up for the IS version, you won't regret it.
As you mentioned, you normally work around 200mm and will occasionally want a bit more reach. Then why not settle for the 70-200 and 1.4x. This is an excellent combination and one I use a lot. I notice from your portfolio that you like to isolate subjects and the 70-200 is so much better at this than the 100-400.
As you've already got the 16-35L and 24-70L it would be a shame not to add the 70-200L IS!
70-200 IS, but not with a 2x. Maybe with a 1.4x. That said, you can get half-reasonable results with a 2x on it, but you have to stop down SO much... Wide open with the 2x is pants. The 1.4x is a lot better.
That's my opinion. I have both 70-200 and 2x and they're not allowed to mate anymore.
Lee.
That's my opinion. I have both 70-200 and 2x and they're not allowed to mate anymore.
Lee.
This is great stuff
Very much appreciate your input guys, nothing better than advice from those who already use these bits of kit.
Looks like Ill have to wait a bit longer to get the IS version of the 70-200 and put it with the 1.4x when required.
Adrian.
Very much appreciate your input guys, nothing better than advice from those who already use these bits of kit.
Looks like Ill have to wait a bit longer to get the IS version of the 70-200 and put it with the 1.4x when required.
Adrian.
