100 - 400 or the 2X III + 70-200, or something else??

Printable View

11-26-2011, 08:03 AM
Cheryl Flory

100 - 400 or the 2X III + 70-200, or something else??

I am currently still using my 40D and need more reach than my 70 - 200 2.8 lens gives me.

I was looking at the Canon 100 - 400 4.5-5.6 L IS lens, but then was wondering if there is any benefit to buying that lens over over getting the new Canon 2X EF Extender III to add to my 70 - 200.

After readying another thread, I now am wondering if I will have auto focus if using that combo of the 40 D, the 70 - 200, and the 2X III converter?

Or is there another option you would recommend?? It doesn't not have to be Canon, if it is as sharp as the Canon lenses. I am also planning on upgrading the body when the upgrade to the 7D comes out.

Thanks!
Cheryl
11-26-2011, 09:35 AM
Roger Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheryl Flory

I am currently still using my 40D and need more reach than my 70 - 200 2.8 lens gives me.

I was looking at the Canon 100 - 400 4.5-5.6 L IS lens, but then was wondering if there is any benefit to buying that lens over over getting the new Canon 2X EF Extender III to add to my 70 - 200.

After readying another thread, I now am wondering if I will have auto focus if using that combo of the 40 D, the 70 - 200, and the 2X III converter?

Or is there another option you would recommend?? It doesn't not have to be Canon, if it is as sharp as the Canon lenses. I am also planning on upgrading the body when the upgrade to the 7D comes out.

Thanks!
Cheryl

Hi Cheryl,

The 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x TC will be f/5.6 so will AF with a 40D (and all canon DSLRs).

There are comparisons on the net of the 100-400 versus 70-200+2x TC and the 100-400 comes out ahead. But neither zoom will resolve the fine detail of a good fixed focal length lens. Also the 7D with smaller pixels is like having a built-in TC: a 1.3x TC over the 40D. So there are multiple ways to get more reach: more focal length, or smaller pixels, or both, and better lenses. Smaller pixel versus TCs that give the same pixels on subject = same noise so it is not a noise trade.

Given your choice, I would get a 7D + 300 f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC and start saving for a bigger lens.

Roger
11-26-2011, 09:52 AM
Doug Brown

I'd vote for a 400mm f/5.6 lens if you want more reach; inexpensive (relatively speaking), sharp, and very fast AF. The downside is no IS, but I've never found that to be a problem. There's also a rumor circulating that Canon is about to release an all-new 100-400.
11-26-2011, 09:59 AM
Cheryl Flory

Thanks for the info, Roger! I didn't think of the 300 + TC.
I am kind of holding off a new body, hoping that the update to the 7D will be soon. And plan to update to that.
Cheryl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

Hi Cheryl,

The 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x TC will be f/5.6 so will AF with a 40D (and all canon DSLRs).

There are comparisons on the net of the 100-400 versus 70-200+2x TC and the 100-400 comes out ahead. But neither zoom will resolve the fine detail of a good fixed focal length lens. Also the 7D with smaller pixels is like having a built-in TC: a 1.3x TC over the 40D. So there are multiple ways to get more reach: more focal length, or smaller pixels, or both, and better lenses. Smaller pixel versus TCs that give the same pixels on subject = same noise so it is not a noise trade.

Given your choice, I would get a 7D + 300 f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC and start saving for a bigger lens.

Roger
11-26-2011, 10:03 AM
Cheryl Flory

thank you, Doug. I appreciate your help. I thought of the 400, but doesn't that need more distance from the subject before it will focus? Making the subject smaller in the frame?

Yes, I checked at Canonrumors.com and saw where the estimated price of the updated 100 - 400 L may be $3,000.00. Don't know if it will be twice as good to justify nearly twice the price. yikes!

thanks!
11-26-2011, 10:10 AM
Doug Brown

The minimum focus distance for the 400mm f/5.6 is about 11.5 feet; in my experience I don't get much closer than that to birds. If you need closer focus, you can always use an extension tube.
11-26-2011, 11:34 AM
Cheryl Flory

very true, Doug, however I hope to use the lens for other subjects also, which I can get closer to. so the extension tube may be very handy. Thanks for the information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Brown

The minimum focus distance for the 400mm f/5.6 is about 11.5 feet; in my experience I don't get much closer than that to birds. If you need closer focus, you can always use an extension tube.
11-26-2011, 11:47 AM
Roger Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheryl Flory

very true, Doug, however I hope to use the lens for other subjects also, which I can get closer to. so the extension tube may be very handy. Thanks for the information.

The 300 f/4 is a great close-up lens.

Roger
11-26-2011, 11:59 AM
Daniel Cadieux

I've never tried the 70-200 f2.8 plus 2x TC so I can't offer my thoughts on that.

The minimum focussing distance of 6 feet is one the reasons I got the 1-4 zoom rather than the prime. Excellent for flowers and other small subjects such as frogs. I was not worried about sharpeness compared to the prime as the results are not visible to the naked eye in real world situations (at least not for me).

Just throwing this out there for you Cheryl to make your decision more difficult.:t3
11-26-2011, 02:27 PM
Andrew Merwin

For me there is a convenience factor with 1-4. I prefer to minimize the number of times I remove a lens to add a TC. Also, adding a TC is somewhat time consuming in a photographic situation when I want to get the shot.
11-26-2011, 08:11 PM
Jay Gould

Check out Artie's latest Blog regarding the 70-200 + TCs!!

He loves the combination and you actually have 70-400 and lots in between.

PS: I do too!!

One of the reasons I am selling my 300 f/2.8.
11-27-2011, 07:58 AM
Cheryl Flory

Thank you, so much, Roger, Daniel, Andrew and Jay!! So much wonderful information! I really appreciate it!
11-27-2011, 08:16 AM
Cheryl Flory

Will there be AF with the 100-400 +2X III TC on the 40D?
Cheryl
11-27-2011, 09:53 AM
Roger Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheryl Flory

Will there be AF with the 100-400 +2X III TC on the 40D?
Cheryl

No. The 100-400 is f/5.6 and even a 1.4x TC would push beyond the f/5.6 AF limit with the 40D or any non 1D series camera.
To add a TC you would need an f/4 lens, and then only an f/4 lens with a 1.4x TC will AF.
To AF with a 2x TC you need an f/2.8 lens.

Roger
11-27-2011, 11:25 AM
Daniel Cadieux

I tried using a 1.4 TC with the 100-400 and the 40D when that was my main body...it did not focus at all, and even with the "tape trick" it was basically unusable (it hunted to no end).
11-28-2011, 02:44 PM
Charles Glatzer

The new 70-200 works well with the new 1.4x, but the combo is not up to my standards with the 2x.
Note - I will only shoot the 70-200 w/ 1.4X combo at or below 5.6.

Their are very sharp copies of the 100-400 out there.

Chas
11-28-2011, 03:36 PM
Andrew Merwin

Cheryl, Canon has a rebate on the 100-400. Here is a URL for more info. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...sSpeedlite.jsp<http: www.bhphotovideo.com="" c="" find="" newsletter="" canonlensspeedlite.jsp=""></http:>
11-28-2011, 05:01 PM
Cheryl Flory

Thanks Andrew and Charles!

Since I do not have the latest 70-200 2.8, are you saying using the 2X converter would noticeably degrade the images?
11-28-2011, 05:15 PM
Jay Gould

Arties loves his 70-200 with the 2X; so do I!!
11-28-2011, 05:23 PM
Cheryl Flory

Jay, do you have the latest 70-200 upgrade?
11-28-2011, 07:53 PM
Jay Gould

Yes, I relied on Artie's evaluation before purchasing. Write to him; you can't be in a rush and you can't have too much information. Did you look at the latest blog post: http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/...is-iiiii-lens/
11-30-2011, 04:29 PM
Charles Glatzer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheryl Flory

Thanks Andrew and Charles!

Since I do not have the latest 70-200 2.8, are you saying using the 2X converter would noticeably degrade the images?ens with 2x will give accepatable results

Cheryl,

Yes, that is what I am saying...pretty good with the 1.4x and acceptable with the 2x when stopped down to or past f/8.
The web is a poor place to judge real world image sharpness. Try it for yourself rather than taking my word or anothers.
There is no doubt a loss in resolution with the 2x use. It is easily recognized when comparing images taken at the same focal length with a 100-400.
Of course you can add back contrast and sharpeness in prostproduction to make the images appear sharper, especially on the web. It all comes down to what "you" deem accepatable.
Publishable quality, sure, wink.

Note- the new 70-200 is much sharper w/o converters than the 100-400.

Chas
11-30-2011, 05:08 PM
Andrew Merwin

Cheryl, in all likelihood, there will be a new 100-400 f/4-5.6 some time in 2012. It will come with the latest IS system & I expect (hope) that it will be sharper than the current model. The estimated price is $2800.00. It may be worth waiting for.
12-01-2011, 07:53 AM
Chris Brennan

Cheryl -

After I sold my 400mm DO in favor of the 500mm F4, I knew I needed something in that medium-tele range: 300-400 that I could eaily hand-hold. Initially I opted for the 400mm f5.6 but after a couple of days of not having decent enough close focus, I returned it and got the 300mm f4 to use by itself and with the 1.4x. It's a fabulous combination! I use it with a 40D, a 7D and a 1DMkIII and it performs beautifully delivering very sharp images with a very slight loss of IQ with the converter. Focus is still quick though and the ability to focus at subjects about 5' away even with the TC is a great benefit.
12-01-2011, 07:56 AM
Cheryl Flory

Thank you for your input Chris and Andrew! I appreciate it.
Cheryl