DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon 70-200 or 100-400
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 14 of 14, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/03/2007 12:28:10 AM · #1
Which would you buy?

The Canon 70-200L IS and a TC

or

the 100-400L IS?

Thanks.
 07/03/2007 12:33:43 AM · #2
eh, probably door #1
 07/03/2007 12:34:15 AM · #3
I bought the 100-400
 07/03/2007 12:35:01 AM · #4
If you got the dough (IMO) the 100-400mm L is the way to go. Great close-ups and it has some good reach.

I have the 70-200mm 4L and a Kenko Teleplus Pro DG x1.4 converter and love the combo. Has always been good to me. but my next lens is the 100-400mm L glass, the added reach is the cincher.

Message edited by author 2007-07-03 00:35:21.
 07/03/2007 01:22:10 AM · #5
I have both the 70-200 2.8L IS (and a 2x converter) and the 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS.

The first one, without a converter, is my most favorite lens of all. With the converter ..... uh .... not so much. It works. It gives me a lot of range. But when I compare the sharpness of the images I get with it, compared to what I get with the 100-400 (sans converter), there's no comparison. The TC just softens the image too much.

So, I use the 70-200 when the action is close, or when the light is too dim. And the 100-400 when the action is further away and there is plenty of light. And, for now ... I've simply stopped using the TC.

07/03/2007 08:45:11 AM · #6
Originally posted by dwterry:
But when I compare the sharpness of the images I get with it, compared to what I get with the 100-400 (sans converter), there's no comparison. The TC just softens the image too much.


I've often heard this, but how bad is it really? Care to post a 100% crop with and without the TC? I have a Sigma 70-200, and wondering whether it's worth getting a TC, or whether to convince my wife I need another tele zoom. :)
07/03/2007 09:13:41 AM · #7
I'd say it depends on what you want to shoot. I like wildlife and bird photography and had been pursuing that with the 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) and just got the 100-400L IS last week. Just from one week of playing with it, I'd say you can't go wrong with the 100-400. For long reach go with the 100-400. I haven't personally used a TC with the 70-200, but I have seen comparison pictures between that lens with a TC and the 100-400, and the TC really seems to decrease the contrast and sharpness of the lens.

On the other hand, I think I prefer the two-touch zoom/focus of the 70-200 over the push-pull 100-400. Also, I really like f/2.8 for portraits
 07/03/2007 09:16:08 AM · #8
By the way, here is another thread with a lot of comparison info:
Thread
 07/03/2007 09:27:31 AM · #9
Originally posted by sailracer_98:
By the way, here is another thread with a lot of comparison info:
Thread


Thanks for the cross link. Very interesting. If those results are typical, I won't be buying a TC!
07/03/2007 09:36:21 AM · #10
Me using Courntey/Dahkota's 100-400. Its a Ken Rockwell jackass shot i didnt actually take pictures with it till night fall. Thanks again Courntey.

07/03/2007 10:19:33 AM · #11
Originally posted by sailracer_98:
On the other hand, I think I prefer the two-touch zoom/focus of the 70-200 over the push-pull 100-400. Also, I really like f/2.8 for portraits


Absolutely!

I've gotten used to the push-pull zoom. I rented this lens quite a few times before I bought it. But with the 70-200, I can keep my thumb on the zoom ring and move in and out with a flick of the thumb. I love that lens, no doubt about it. The 100-400 just has a longer reach is all.

07/03/2007 10:20:11 AM · #12
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
I've often heard this, but how bad is it really? Care to post a 100% crop with and without the TC? I have a Sigma 70-200, and wondering whether it's worth getting a TC, or whether to convince my wife I need another tele zoom. :)


I don't have anything here at work, but let me see if I can post something tonight.

07/03/2007 10:27:54 PM · #13
Great, thank you all for the great input! I think I see a 100-400 in my future. :-)

Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
I've often heard this, but how bad is it really? Care to post a 100% crop with and without the TC? I have a Sigma 70-200, and wondering whether it's worth getting a TC, or whether to convince my wife I need another tele zoom. :)


I don't have anything here at work, but let me see if I can post something tonight.


I'd like to see a comparison as well.
 07/04/2007 02:12:45 AM · #14
Okay, I was looking through my sports images tonight trying to find good examples of the softness seen when using the 70-200 plus TC as compared to using the 100-400 lens all by itself. And as I looked through the many images, I began to realize that there would be no way to determine whether the softness was do to: 1) improper focus, 2) subject movement (these were sports images!), 3) shutter speed, 4) aperture, or physical lens limitations.

So... I decided to set up a more scientific approach to answering the question. And rather than bury the details in this thread, I posted in a separate thread, here.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/31/2025 05:46:39 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/31/2025 05:46:39 PM EST.