Lyzzard From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 404 posts, RR: 13 Posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4752 times:
I'm about to burn a rather big hole in the wallet with the purchase of my long awaiting 10D but I've been agonising which lens to get with the camera.
I currently own 2 average lenses... the Canon EF 75-300MM F4-5.6 III and Canon EF 28-105MM F4-5.6 USM. I'm quite certain I'd be chucking the 75-300 because I'm not too happy with the quality of the optics.
Been looking to replace the telephoto with the Canon EF 70-200MM F/4.0 L, Canon EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 IS or the Canon EF 70-200MM F /2.8L USM.
Hisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4729 times:
If you can spend $1500, drop the 70-200/4 from the race. It's a great lens but doesn't give you enough reach. A 70-200/2.8 IS + 2X TC Vs. a 100-400 is a tough call. I would go with the 70-200mm because of the option of shooting at F/2.8.
Dazultra From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 689 posts, RR: 40
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4698 times:
When using a 2x teleconvertor i believe the minimum aperture is 2 steps higher than what it used to be, i think the 1.4x converter only increases it by 1 step - so if u used the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x converter , the min number would actually be 2 stops higher, i.e. 4.0 (or 3.5 - i forget).
I own the 75-300 f4-5.6 USM IS and I have to agree the optics are not very good at all especially at the high telephoto end
Ive heard very good things about the 70-200 f2.8 though, and with a 2x converter I don't think it would be the end of the world to have a f4.0 lens at 140mm, since the 100-400 is f4.5 at 100mm, id go for the 70-200 myself.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 779 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4693 times:
I've owned all 3 lenses.
The 70-200mm f4 is great - but I replaced it with the 70-200 2.8, partly for the extra stop but mostly for the IS, which is Canon's best implementation yet - good for 3 stops in my experience.
The 100-400 is also a great lens, and for aircraft photography, extremely versatile.
Having both the 70-200 & 100-400 plus the 1.4 & 2x convertors, there was a certain amount of redundancy. After careful comparisons, I determined that the 70-200 +2x convertor was slightly inferior to the 100-400 at 400mm. However at other focal lengths, the 70-200 is better than the 100-400 and with the 1.4x convertor it is at least as good as the 100-400 at 280mm.
In the end I sold the 100-400, but it was a difficult call - I should also point out that I have 2 bodies meaning the range of the 100-400 is no longer such a big factor for me.
A small point of correction to dazultra's note: the 1.4x convertor adds 1 stop to the effective aperture, making the 70-200f2.8 a 98-280 f4; the 2x convertor adds 2 stops making the lens a 140-400 f5.6. This is about 1/2 stop slower than the 100-400, however the 70-200's IS is better than the 100-400's. It is arguably better ergonomically as well, being a ring zoom instead of push-pull.
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4683 times:
As the happy owner of the 100-400 IS L...you can't go wrong with this lens if you are going to shoot airplanes. I have been able to shoot in very low light hand held with very nice results. It is also great for things like airshows where you may be tracking a fast moving subject and are worried about camera shake. The IS is a blessing.
If you are budget limited the Sigma line can be very nice. I had lots of luck with the 170-500 lens, especially when sitting on a monopod.
Lyzzard From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 404 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4674 times:
Thanks for your useful comments everyone. After much deliberation, I think I've decided to go for the 100-400 IS. Colin, I noted your comment about the push-pull zoom and agree that its not as nice as a ring zoom, but the action is quite smooth and I think I should be able to get used to it. I think the main consideration for me was the cost. The 70-200/1.4x converter combo was going to be a quite a bit more than the 100-400. I'm already stretching my budget as it is so I thought I'd better not push my luck any further!
Ooh, can't wait till next week when I pick up the camera and the lens!