| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2009 02:32:24 PM · #1 |
Hi all,
I'm in great doubt, in a few weeks I'll visit Africa for a safari and my question is:
what's better, a Canon 100-400 or a Canon 70-200 IS USM + tc 1.4x?
I know 100-400 is the right lens for a safari, but I often travel
(for work) and visit mostly cities so I don't have many opportunities, during the year, to
take pictures on wild life. Taking into account the fact that I'd like the 70-200
just because I find it more versatile for my usual travels... What do you suggest between the
two?
Many thanx for any help :)))) |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 02:35:45 PM · #2 |
| Are you considering the 70-200/2.8 or 4.0? |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 02:39:10 PM · #3 |
| f/2.8 (I know it will drop to 5.6 after mounting the extender) |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 02:43:36 PM · #4 |
In my opinion, having both and shooting with both, I would every time pick my 100-400 over the 70=200 2.8 with the 1.4x telecoverter. the 100-400 is sharper In my opinion.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 02:46:16 PM · #5 |
| Thanx hot-pixel, but right now I can't afford both of them, so I have to take this painful choice :P |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 02:49:30 PM · #6 |
I use the my 1.4x with 70-200/4.0 making a 280/5.6 which is relatively slow (though the same aperture as the 100-400 @280mm). IMO the extra 120mm between the two is a huge difference, If you are shooting wildlife, you are going to want all the reach you can get.
One other thing to consider is that 1.4x + 70-200/2.8 = 280/4.0. The extra stop could prove to be very useful.
Lastly, I don't really notice a drop off in sharpness with the teleconverter attached. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 02:56:49 PM · #7 |
I use the Canon 300mm f4L/IS with a 1.4x and the 2X and the quality is amazing
I have also used the 100-400 and find it a very good lens indeed.
My only experience with the 70-200 was not a very good one and I ended up selling mine
The best thing I done was get that 300mm lens, I will later buy myself a 70-200 f4 when funds allow |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 03:28:39 PM · #8 |
I'd suggest that the 70-200 with TC would be the best route for you. You state that the focal length range would be good for you for other things-that is a plus already. Using a 2x TC (on the 70-200) would lead to an image degradation, but it's not an absolutely disastrous one, especially given the fact that you'd have an f/2.8 lens for other uses (when used without the TC). This, in itself, might be a good idea on a safari, especially if some shooting is to be taking place in crepuscular light.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 03:37:13 PM · #9 |
And for those like me....
cre·pus·cu·lar (krĭ-pŭs'kyə-lər)
adj.
1. Of or like twilight; dim: "the period's crepuscular charm and a waning of the intense francophilia that used to shape the art market" (Wall Street Journal).
2. Zoology Becoming active at twilight or before sunrise, as do bats and certain insects and birds.
I'll join the 70-200/2.8 + 1.4 gang. Yes, you'll get more reach whilst on Safari but the 70-200 will most likely be a better friend to you.
What 'gear' do you have btw? you can add it to your profile page. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 03:37:24 PM · #10 |
| i have both the 1-4 is sharper than the 70 -200 with a 1.4x and you may end up useing the 1-4 with a 1.4x on wildlife you can never have too much reach on wildlife! but the choice is yours! |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 03:38:28 PM · #11 |
If you are shooting with a 1.6x crop Body the 70-200mm f/2.8 +/- a 1.4xTC is plenty for a Safari, you get pretty close to the animals. While a 100-400mm would be the ideal focal length for a safari you seem to imply that you will have more use for the 70-200 afterwards...so I say stick with the 70-200 2.8.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 03:49:59 PM · #12 |
Thanx to everyone for your precious advice!
As it's clear from the answers it's a 50-50 match, some of you (like me) prefer the 70-200 + tc because it's more versatile. The others prefer more focal length to reach even the most distant objects. This really is my doubt. With shorter lens I can miss some nice shots, with longer lens I'll have a zoom that's wonderful for a safari but "less" useful for everyday life (and quality a little bit inferior to the 70-200 IMHO). I don't know what to expect, if animals will be far away or close, that's why I'm not able to take a decision by myself.
Anyway I'll bring with me just 3 lens: my future 70-200 + tc OR 100-400, a nice 50mm f/1.2 that I personally love when the sun sets :) and a useful 17-40mm. Any other advice is more than welcome at this point! Thanx SO much!!! |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 04:04:55 PM · #13 |
My 100-400 is my favourite for the "street photography" I do, if you can call it that. :-/
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 04:05:18 PM · #14 |
While you can never have too much reach for wildlife, an African safari lets you get pretty close to the animals...On our Kenya Safari in 2006 very often my 500mm would be way too long and the 70-200 was the ideal lens.
Photos here from the Kenya Safari
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 04:57:25 PM · #15 |
Wonderful set doctornick!
Thanx for your advice, in the end I think I'll go for the 70-200 + TC 1.4, i really don't like the quality loss on this lens with a 2x TC.
Thanx to everyone who helped me, I hope this will really be the right lens for me :), I'll cross my fingers :).
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 06:50:13 PM · #16 |
I'm sorry... Another question: between f/2.8 and f/4 (taking into account the fact that f/4 has a newer generation IS) which one would you choose? (one is heavier, the other lighter etc)...
Thanx again. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 07:20:08 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jobac:
I'm sorry... Another question: between f/2.8 and f/4 (taking into account the fact that f/4 has a newer generation IS) which one would you choose? (one is heavier, the other lighter etc)...
Thanx again. |
It all depends on what you are shooting and perhaps what you are shooting with. I have the f/4 IS - you can handhold that lens. I would say thats less true of the 2.8. Light is a different story. If you are shooting with a 1 series (mark III) or 5DII, you can boost the ISO pretty noise free to allow you to shoot at f/4 with reasonable shutter speeds in lower light. Thats not going to be true of the crop sensor bodies. So if you are shooting moving wildlife in low light, the 2.8 might be a good choice if you can't boost the ISO. If you are shooting static scenery in lower light, you might be ok with the f/4, especially if you are using a tripod. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 07:42:59 PM · #18 |
can someone tell me if I'm calculating this correctly:
70-200, 1.4TC, 1.6 CF = 200 X 1.4 X 1.6 = 448mm max
100-400, 1.6 CF = 400 X 1.6 = 640mm max
Thanks! |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 08:23:37 PM · #19 |
dahkota your calculations are right :)
thanx photodude, I'll be using 40D, despite its weight the 2.8f would be generally better I guess, but I don't know what kind of light conditions I'll meet there :). So many variables... So many lens :PPPP |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 08:36:05 PM · #20 |
| Given the choice between the f/2.8 and the f/4 I'll take the 2.8 anytime! The light conditions were rarely an issue in Kenya, early mornings and late afternoons were quite manageable with ISO 400 most of the time...sometimes ISO 800. |
|
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: 09/07/2025 07:27:54 PM EDT.
