Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 100-400 V 28-300  
User currently offlineotooleg From UK - Scotland, joined May 2012, 11 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3060 times:

Guys I am considering the purchase of one of the above two lenses for Aviation and Wildlife Photography and wondered if any of you have either of these lenses and would like to offer advice? I currently have a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L IS Lens and find I am just that little bit to far away and would like a bit more flexibility and quality for aviation photography. George

3 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3028 times:

If you think 300 will be enough, I'd say save some money and go with a 1.4 convertor for your 70-200. I think the image quality will be as good, if not better, that either of these lenses. Your AF will slow down a little compared to the lens without the convertor, but then neither the 100-400 or 28-300 are noted for fast AF.

If you want the wide angle benefit of the 28-300, then use the money you save to get (for example) a 24-105 or 17-40.

I you NEED 400mm, then you don't have much choice. I wouldn't rely on the 2x convertor on the 70-200

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3025 times:

The trouble with the 28-300 is that it's going from wide-angle to super-telephoto, and although being an L it's better than the alternatives such lenses try and be a 'jack of all trades' but are unfortunately master of none. They are generally for those who can only transport a single lens and need to be most flexible. Like Colin I'd suggest a twin-lens arrangement, such as the 24-70L and 70-300L, or 24-105L and 100-400L. Or even a nice 300/400mm prime for the long range.

Karl


User currently offlineotooleg From UK - Scotland, joined May 2012, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2929 times:

Guys thanks for that I have had real issues using a 2x convertor with the 70-200 and not getting the images sharp enough for publication. I think to be honest it is a little bit of my skills and my cameras causing the issues - getting images sharp using the Canon EOS 1D Mark IIn and the Canon EOS ID Mark III has never been easy despite the large outlay to purchase same. Thinking about buying the 7D and possibly the Sigma 150-500 as possible alternatives? Comments?
George


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 100-400 Or 300 L Or 400 L? posted Sat May 13 2006 00:37:44 by LHRSIMON
Canon 100-400, Or Other Options? posted Thu Jul 18 2013 21:03:17 by alexjames23
New Canon 100-400 posted Thu Jun 13 2013 17:08:41 by ckw
Soft Images From Canon 100-400 posted Mon May 21 2012 12:33:45 by DLX737200
Rumor: Canon 100-400 Will Be Replaced Next Year posted Fri Oct 29 2010 09:27:38 by SNATH
Canon 100-400 L Is USM Lens posted Wed Jul 22 2009 04:01:06 by Snecma
Canon 100-400 Fell Off In Quality After 2 Years posted Tue Jan 6 2009 10:40:07 by Whisperjet
Rumor: Canon 100-400 L MkII Specs posted Mon Dec 29 2008 05:46:19 by SNATH
Any Rumors On A Canon 100-400 L Replacement? posted Fri Nov 28 2008 03:05:40 by SNATH
Canon 100-400 Lens Questions. posted Sun Oct 19 2008 12:37:22 by Apollo13