| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/30/2007 07:06:54 AM · #1 |
A Hypothetical Question (sort of):
You have $2K to spend. 50% of your time you shoot indoor sports, the other 50% you shoot wildlife. Would you buy a EF 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS or a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 2x extender?
I'm assuming the 100-400 would be almost unuseable for indoor sports. However, how does the 70-200 with extender compare to the 100-400 in the 200-400 range?
Thanks,
Steven
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 07:49:54 AM · #2 |
The 70-200/2.8 is a superb lens. With a 2x extender, it becomes a 140-400/5.6, but you'll still have the option of not using the extender, so your total range becomes 70-400. It has a higher optical quality than the 100-400, but lacks the IS (the IS version is outside the assumed budget range)
For indoor sports, it depends on how speedy the sport is. But remember, if the 100-400 is too slow, the 70-200 + extender will be too slow as well, since you loose two stops to the extender. For slower sports, the IS of the 100-400 might save your day. Even for fairly fast sports, IS is a life saver @400mm.
For wildlife, I would be indifferent between the two (shooting from monopod or tripod anyway), except for the slightly larger range of the 70-200+extender.
If it's 50-50, the 100-400 would be the best choice I guess.
Message edited by author 2007-12-30 07:50:39.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 08:01:30 AM · #3 |
| From the research I did when looking at the 100-400 from canon I came across a few articles about theses two lenses vs each other when a 2x extender is used on the 70-200f/2.8. The long and short of it was that the image quality on the 400mm end of the 70-200f2.8 is much below that of the canon 100-400 on its long end but still retain your AF and the such though. If shooting indoors half the time I will say that I own the 100-400 and I doubt you will be getting much use from that lens in a darker indoor venue. That being said, for outside use I love the lens and as of right now it is my favorite lens. You sound like you need the versatility though. You might consider using the 1.4 extender intead and giving up the small extra reach to perserve image quality. Here is a link to the Luminous Landscaope that will give you more info. Luminous Landscape 70-200f2.8 vs 100-400. Trevor ~ |
|
|
|
12/30/2007 08:45:18 AM · #4 |
Stopped down to f/10, the 70-200/TC combo is really quite sharp and, in fact, usable at f/5.6 If you can get away with stopping down like this, then I would venture to suggest that getting the 70-200 IS and the 2x TC is not a bad compromise, given that you said you shoot indoor sports. Assuming you're not going to be using the TC indoors, then the wider aperture of the 70-200 will make focussing much more accurate and you will get a much faster shutter speed wide open than when using the 100-400.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 08:56:38 AM · #5 |
| In terms of your needs I think it is the 70-200 plus extender that will satisfy you most. My friend shoots with the X2 on his 70-200 and the results are in my opinion very good.... but he shoots of tripod most of the time. The 'flexibility' should make up the answer to the question. |
|
|
|
12/30/2007 09:55:55 AM · #6 |
There's just no way to use the 100-400 indoors. There's simply not enough light.
And while I absolutely love the 70-200, I used it with the 2x extender for a long time to shoot sports and was never very happy with that combo (I always shot wide open and it was quite soft).
So now it's 70-200 for indoors and 100-400 for outdoors (switching to 70-200 sans extender when the sun goes down).
My recommendation: Buy both!
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 10:53:12 AM · #7 |
My 100-400 is purely my daylight lens.
Shooting sports, you want fast lens sets, period.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 12:30:44 PM · #8 |
I have the 70-200 2.8L IS and 100-400 4.5/5.6L IS and 2x extender. You WILL not be happy with the 2x extender on anything... unless it's a matter of getting the shot no matter what. If you need to use an extender, get the 1.4x. It doesn't extend as much, but the quality of the shot is much better.
Before I got the two lenses, I was in the same boat. I shot a lot at indoor events in arenas, barns, fairground buildings, convention centers, etc. but I also shot a lot at outdoor events where the action could be across a field or the other side of a large penned area. I needed a fast lens but I needed a long lens. I finally went with the 70-200 2.8L IS first, since I needed fast and the 200mm would still give me reach and the quality was good enough that I could crop closer and still get a decent (read sellable) image. About 6 months later, I bought the 100-400 when I started shooting more outdoors again. I bought the 2x, have used it a few times and even on a tripod it's just never given me the quality that I have been happy with. Which is exactly what everyone on the Canon forum has always said to anyone that has asked about the 2x extender.
I use my 100-400 in daylight, but it does a great job at fast action events. I've even used it at air shows and have gotten great shots.
Mike
Message edited by author 2007-12-30 12:32:30. |
|
|
|
12/30/2007 12:58:12 PM · #9 |
I would say, go with a 70-200 2.8 non-IS, along with a 400 5.6... that'll cost you about $2200 (less if you go used).
For sports, you'll be shooting fast enough that the lack of IS wont matter, and for wildlife you'll want to be shooting wide open anyway, making a prime your best option. Gonna need a tripod though... and that in itself ain't cheap! |
|
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: 08/02/2025 03:50:34 PM EDT.
