Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 4, 2005, 3:00 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2
Default

Hi all,

I am selling my 28-300L IS USM, and plan to buy a 70-200L IS USM,
Is it worth getting the 100/400 as well, or would it be better to use the 70/200 with a convertor?

Obviously if im only buying the 70-200, (Plus Conv..) may also buy the 24/70L
But at the moment wonder if the 70/200 with conv will be as sharp as the 100/400?

Kind Regards
Stuart
Stuartbm is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 4, 2005, 9:57 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
ThomasATC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 116
Default

Hi Stuart,

I own the ef 70 200 L IS USMand find itto befantastic. And from some photos posted on this forum, the ef 100 400seems to haveamazing image quality too!

What kind of shooting are you planning to do? Did you find the 28 300 long enough for your needs? If so, then the 70 200 combined with a 1.4X converter should be more than sufficient withexcellent image quality. And from 70 200, the fast f2.8 would be yet another advantage for certain types of shooting. Of course with the extender attached, you would lose an f stop on your way up to 280mm. This package should cost you around $2000.

You will here different opinions on the image quality with the 2X converter attached bringing you up to 400mm.

However, if most of your shooting is distant wildlife, andyou need more reach,the 100 400 may prove to be a less costly alternative. Then again, if finances permit, you can't lose owning them both. Good luck..

Tom
ThomasATC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2005, 5:19 PM   #3
hbh
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 50
Default

Photografing wildlife you will need the 100/400L or you can also take the 70-200L IS USM combined with 2 tc.
hbh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 3:30 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 117
Default

If you can, go and try the 100-400 and compare it for usability against the 70-200.

If I'd have done the above, I think I'd of gone for a 1.4 TC and not the 100-400. Not keen on it!

I'd not recommend the 2xTC as I've read on other forums that it doesn't work too well with the 70-200! But stand to be corrected.

My next major purchase will be a 1.4 TC for my 70-200.

Also, if you can afford it, go for the f2.8 version!!! More money but worth it..IMO!

Carl.
CarlsPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 11:35 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2
Default

Thank you all for the help,

I lan to go with a 24-70L, and the 70-200L ..

I did think about the 100-400, but have decided to go with a 300L f4 and perhaps a 1.4x for both the 70-200 if needed on the zoom, but mainly to move the 300mm up when needed.



Thanks for all the help.
Stuartbm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2005, 4:02 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Stuartbm wrote:
Quote:
Thank you all for the help,

I lan to go with a 24-70L, and the 70-200L ..

I did think about the 100-400, but have decided to go with a 300L f4 and perhaps a 1.4x for both the 70-200 if needed on the zoom, but mainly to move the 300mm up when needed.

Thanks for all the help.
That's exactly my plan. I already see some image degradation with the 1.4x TC on my 70-200. I definitely do not want to use it with a 2x TC. I just need to get the 300 F4 IS.... Having a prime will be interesting too, whole different way of shooting. Now you have to zoom with your feet.

Barthold

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:39 AM.