JohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3136 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
100-400 for sure. A 70-200 and 2x converter performs like a poorly adjusted 100-400.
BUT, the 70-200 2.8L IS is one of the best lenses on the market, and I use it with a 1.4 extender and that works pretty well the little I have tried it since I got it.
5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
NicolasRubio From Argentina, joined Sep 2005, 583 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3136 times:
You will get much better results with the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS than with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS + Canon 2x II TC. Not only sharpness-wise, but you will have an IS optimized for that FL and faster AF.
Well, I was beaten by 32 seconds :p
Oh, by the way... it is lens, not lense!
[Edited 2009-07-28 13:55:53]
Gripped 7D + Sigma 10-20mm + 17-40L + 50mm f/1.8 II + 70-200mm f/4L IS + EF 400mm f/5.6L + 580EX II
Astro777lover From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 212 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3118 times:
Quoting NicolasRubio (Reply 2): Hi. What would give you the best quality? A Canon 100-400mm L IS USM lens or a combination of a Canon 70-200mm f2,8 L IS USM lens with a 2x Canon convertor?
I dont have either one myself but reading in other forums that the Canon 100-400 is a dust sucker (because push/pull action) so you might want to consider that. I heard gets on sensor but with a blower its easy to clean and the 70-200 IS L USM is a great lens but i doint know about the teleconverter. I would personally go with 70-200/2.8 L IS USM. All up to you and what/where your shooting.
Canon EOS 450D, Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS USM, Canon 580EX II
Cvervais From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 609 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3075 times:
Are you shooting with a crop body or a full frame? On a full frame body the 100-400 has some moderate vignetting at 400mm. If you're using a crop body it's much less noticeable.
I have this lens and a full frame body and if the only background for the plane is sky the vignetting is quite obvious. It is a dust pump but, I've found if you don't push or pull harshly it's not really too much of a problem. A rocket-air usually takes care of anything that might get on the sensor. I've also found that if I adjust the zoom while in rapid fire mode the dust has more of a chance to get to the sensor. If I adjust while not doing exposures it seems to help with this issue as well.
Despite all this, you could not pull this lens from my cold dead hands. It's a very good lens for doing this sort of photography.
Ghajdufi From Hungary, joined Jun 2005, 194 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2890 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi, I have or had all the stuff you are asking about.
For my non-aviation work the 70-200 2.8 is unbeatable. The only drawback for aviation photography is that it's only 200mm. If you can get close to the action you'll be fine with it. This lens with the 2x extender is OK but not great. I have photos even here on a.net that were taken by this setup. If the light is great the images will turn out to be quite OK but still slightly on the soft side. The advantage is that you can remove the extender and have a fantastic lens up to 200mm.
I had the 100-400 for a few months, only used it for aviation. between 100 and 300 it was quite nice but by far not as good as the 70-200. Above 300mm I found the pictures too soft.
I had no problems with the dust at all.