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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 29, 2006, 7:38 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24
Default

I'm using a 20D and currently have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens and a 1.4x teleconverter. I was shooting at a baseball game today and had the opportunity to see someone's shots with the 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS lens andwould like to have the additional zoom. The price is around $1300 for the 100-400 but I can get a 2x teleconverter for $1000 less.

I know a teleconverter does come with a compromise of image quality so I'm looking for any info on anyone's experience with the 2x tc and the 70-200 lens. Would there be a noticeable difference between that setup and the actual 100-400 lens? If so, is it worth the extra money for the lens?

Thanks.

Gary
garyalford is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 30, 2006, 4:03 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

garyalford wrote:
Quote:
I know a teleconverter does come with a compromise of image quality so I'm looking for any info on anyone's experience with the 2x tc and the 70-200 lens. Would there be a noticeable difference between that setup and the actual 100-400 lens? If so, is it worth the extra money for the lens?
IMO - Yes big time...

The 100-400 is quite sharp wide opened :idea:
-> but no lens with a TC can equal one without, especially @ wide open - You may have to close down a few stops on the 70-200 f/2.8 combo to improve its IQ, but then it's not really comparable anymore is it?

-> The AF speed change on the combo will also be quite noticeable :evil:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 9:22 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 56
Default

I tried the 2x TC with my 70-200 f/2.8, and was mostly disappointed. Maybe I was expecting too much, since the 70-200 performs so well on its own. I bought it specifically to shoot my daughter's softball games from the center field fence. I wanted to get some good shots of the batters and the catcher. I had previously bought a Quantaray 120-400 for this purpose and didn't care for the results. Frankly, the 70-200 + 2x TC didn't do much better. The shots were just a little soft, and it seemed to have back focus issues. Now, this was on a Digital Rebel, so it might do better on a 20D or 5D. It's also possible that I'm doing something wrong myself. Not sure. I have used the combo with good results shooting objects that are closer than the 200+ feet at the softball field. I have actually used them together as a pseudo "macro" lens to shoot some studio stuff, and got pretty good results, though I had to back off a few feet. The 1.4x performs a little better, but doesn't have the same reach, of course.


tmilner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2006, 9:08 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175
Default

garyalford wrote:
Quote:
I'm using a 20D and currently have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens and a 1.4x teleconverter. I was shooting at a baseball game today and had the opportunity to see someone's shots with the 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS lens andwould like to have the additional zoom. The price is around $1300 for the 100-400 but I can get a 2x teleconverter for $1000 less.

I know a teleconverter does come with a compromise of image quality so I'm looking for any info on anyone's experience with the 2x tc and the 70-200 lens. Would there be a noticeable difference between that setup and the actual 100-400 lens? If so, is it worth the extra money for the lens?

Thanks.

Gary

Gary, this should give you your answer:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml



Hope this helps,

ChrisM

www.imagineimagery.com


ChrisDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2006, 4:32 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24
Default

Thanks for the replies. I managed to borrowa 2x tc since posting that message and was very dissapointed with the results. I guess the 100-400 is my solution. I really hate spending that much but if I have to do it to get the desired results, so be it.

I considered the Sigma line but have been somewhat dissapointed with my 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma. On my rebel, I have no problems with it but on my 20D, I've had problems with a halo effect around bright objects. In shooting baseball games on a sunny day, there is a bright halo outline around the whiteuniforms that is very unacceptable. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 doesn't produce it. Based on that, I'm leary of a Sigma alternative.

Gary
garyalford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2006, 1:50 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 48
Default

garyalford wrote:
Quote:
Thanks for the replies. I managed to borrowa 2x tc since posting that message and was very dissapointed with the results. I guess the 100-400 is my solution. I really hate spending that much but if I have to do it to get the desired results, so be it.

I considered the Sigma line but have been somewhat dissapointed with my 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma. On my rebel, I have no problems with it but on my 20D, I've had problems with a halo effect around bright objects. In shooting baseball games on a sunny day, there is a bright halo outline around the whiteuniforms that is very unacceptable. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 doesn't produce it. Based on that, I'm leary of a Sigma alternative.

Gary
Please take comfort in the knowledge that my 100-400 L in the UK with best deal going costs just over $2024 dollars at todays exchange
inness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2006, 2:44 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
stevefossimages's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11
Default

garyalford wrote:
Quote:
I considered the Sigma line but have been somewhat dissapointed with my 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma.┬* On my rebel, I have no problems with it but on my 20D, I've had problems with a halo effect around bright objects.┬* In shooting baseball games on a sunny day, there is a bright halo outline around the white┬*uniforms that is very unacceptable.┬* The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 doesn't produce it.┬* Based on that, I'm leary of a Sigma alternative.

Gary
Gary, I've been shooting outdoor sports with the 100-400L for almost two years now. Football, baseball, track. First with the digital Rebel and then with the 20D. Speed of focus and operation is vastly improved with the 20D, as you'd expect, and the Rebel, if I recall correctly, had very poor Al Servo focus capabilites for tracking action. The 20D Al Servo is quite good, and I've had none of the halo affect you mentioned re Sigma with the 100-400 on either body. You will like shooting sports with it. Also, the IS has two modes. There are some who say IS is superfluous when shooting sports because you're tracking with the action, but I've found it valuable in some cases, and IS mode 2 is designed to pan either vertically or horizontally with the subject, which is the convention in sports.

************

Steve
CPS member
www.stevefossimages.com
stevefossimages 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 11:03 PM.