Telephoto Zoom Questions

[john michael white]

My next area of lens purchases need to be in the telephoto range.

[Eric DeWitt]

John, i can’t say a whole lot about the 70-200 since i don’t have alot of time with it, but i can give a huge thumbs up for the 100-400.  If you look at the sizes, 70 is pretty close to 100, but 400 is a long ways from 200, so in that respect maybe the 100-400 is a little more versatile with just having to buy one thing.  I also thought when i did the research a couple years ago and don’t you lose some of the AF stuff or something with the converter?

The sharpness, contrast, AF, color of the 100-400 is awesome, but i know the 70-200 is probably in the same class too.

Heres some shots from it.. let me know if you want to see some full size and i will email them over.  

[dusty montgomery]

Eric,
This is one of the most bad-ass motion pics I have seen in a while. Not that I am a connoisseur or knowledgeable, but I simply love this image!

Thanks,
Dusty

[john michael white]

Eric,

Thanks for posting your photos from the 100-400.  Those look really nice.

You may be right, as I looked again, and the 70-200 f2.8 L  weighs 2.8 lbs and the 100-400 weighs 3.0 lbs.  By the time I added a teleconverter, the 70-200 would weigh as much or more than the 100-400.  Cost would be about equal.  What about size though; isn’t the 100-400 humongous?  Oh, and I was incorrect above about the 70-200 shooting at f4 with a 2x teleconverter.  The specs say it is f/5.6.  Also, they say that auto focusing is possible with the coupling of the 70-200 and 2x tele, but you can only use the center focusing point.  If you couple the 100-400 with a 2x tele, you can only use manual focus.  Of course with the 40D, if I used the 100-400, it would actually reach out to 640mm.  And it would have IS.

[Abe Mathews]

John-

Don’t take any advice I give you, because I’m a complete clueless newbie.

[Buzz Bryson]

JM,

I’m a Nikon shooter, so am not that familiar with the specific Canon lenses.  But, here’s a trade-off to consider.  The 70-200 f/2.8 will give you significantly more “range”, light-wise.  You’ll likely see a lot of situations where you’d kill to be able to shoot at f/2.8 or even f/4, instead of having a max aperture of f/ 4.5-5.6.  

Countering that, the 2x converter will, as you noted, severely limit focusing.  It will also degrade the image.  Whether that’s noticeable, or even better/worse than the 100-400, well, you’ll just have to check.

Friends who are Canon shooters (and who have some big prime teles) say the 100-400 is indispensible for times when they can’t or just don’t want to carry a big 400 prime.

I’d say your choice would have to be made depending upon the type of shooting you’re doing.  If there is more action and low light, I’d go with the 70-200 (and consider using the 1.4x extender, which is almost always sharper than the 2x, regardless of brand).  If you’re looking for the maximum in versatility, won’t be limited by the f/4.5-5.6, and need to reach out beyond 200mm regularly, go with the 100-400.

Buzz

[john michael white]

Abe,

Thanks for the input on the 100-400.

[anonymous]

John Michael:

I have the 70-200L 2.8 USM. You will lose two or three f-stops with the 2x converter making it 5.6 as you noted. In fact, when you put the 2x extender on a 30D, the default f-Stop is 5.6. Image quality will degrade more as Buzz noted. I went that route because of price and so I could add single objective lenses later. I believe Canon no longer makes this lens although it is still available. The replacement with IS is now a $2000 lens as you probably know.

Samples:

Samples with 2x converter:

Samples with converter and cropped:

Not an easy decision. But if you think ahead to what you want your system to look like down the road, you’ll be happy.

[Eric DeWitt]

John, as you can see from the shots, i spent a couple weeks in africa, and it was in the dry season and dang dusty.  The camera mostly say along side me or in my lap during the day when we were in the truck, and i didn’t really notice any problems with sucking anything in.  I do like the slide zoom too.  The ring can be loosened or tightened to the point of locking out movement so that when you are walking aournd/not shooting or whatever, the lens won’t creep out on you.  

As far as the 2.8 vs 5.6, when i am shooting wildlife, i usually find myself wishing for more reach alot more often than i am wishing for more light.  If its dusk or whatever, i am usually on a tripod anyway, so it becomes a non-issue.  

The IS works pretty good, giving you at least a couple stops worth of hand holdability more than normal.  

I think if you were doing portraits and maybe “light wildlife”, the 70-200 would be fine.  But for serious stuff, i think you will be happier with the 100-400.

Dusty, thanks!  Just ignore the dust spots.

[Corey Kruitbosch]

I went through this same debate and actually went with the sigma 50-150 / 2.8 and a 2x. It didnt work as expected and I was not quite happy with the zoom distance @ 300. I ended up going with the canon 100-400 and couldn’t be happier.

[Brett Colvin]

I’ve done a fair amount of shooting with teleconverters, and I really like the results on prime lenses, especially 1.4x or 1.7x magnifications.

[kurt budliger]

I would discourage you from using a 2X converter on the the 70-200, or any other lens for that matter.

[John Bennett]

I could write a book on this topic.

I’ve owned the 100-400 L. Its a fantastic lens…..that has drawbacks. I may/will one day own it again. Why did I give it up?

Focus Speed. I’m not saying it’s “slow”, it is however slower than any prime. For me and what I like to do/shoot, those thousands of a second spell missed shots.

The 70-200 f2.8 is another fantastic lens.

So what do you do when you have two equally fantastic lenses?
Wrack your brain weighing the trade-offs. What are you willing to sacrifice in order to get what you really want?

For most of you who seriously shoot wildlife, what mm range do you find yourself using most on average?

You can never have too much reach. Ever.
***********************************

On TCs.
My advice is that they are always worth to have on hand. However, understand that they always reduce light, always reduce IQ and always reduce focus speed.

The next peice of advice is that if you want to use a TC and not occasionally swear at yourself for having it mounted, only use them with Primes.

500mm F4 L and 1.4 TC ( or 700mm)

500mm F4 L + 1.4 TC + Tripod + Prayer (taken at 1/8th of a second)

If your budget is limiting you but you really want something for wildlife have a look at the Tamron 200-500. You’ll have nice reach (500mm) with no TC, zoom options incase your too close (its rare but happens) and for the focal length its dirt cheap and is sharp.

Its downside is its slow to focus. Birds in flight will be hit and miss but most else it will be up to the task.

Any questions dont hesitate to ask.

J

[john michael white]

Thanks everyone for all of your input, and thanks for sharing your example pics!

[Author]

Posts