| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2006 02:01:39 PM · #1 |
100-400 L 4.5- 5.6 IS or 2x extender for my 70-200? $1400 vs. $279
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 02:03:18 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
100-400 L 4.5- 5.6 IS or 2x extender for my 70-200? $1400 vs. $279 |
2X, less money and less to carry around.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 02:04:29 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
100-400 L 4.5- 5.6 IS or 2x extender for my 70-200? $1400 vs. $279 |
2X, less money and less to carry around. |
And it's lighter.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 02:06:59 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by MrEd:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
100-400 L 4.5- 5.6 IS or 2x extender for my 70-200? $1400 vs. $279 |
2X, less money and less to carry around. |
And it's lighter. |
LOL! Kinda what I was thinking.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 02:15:19 PM · #5 |
is that the IS version of the 70-200? if so, expect the IS to be somewhat less effective when you've got the 2x extender on there. not an issue in strong light of course, but you'll see camera shake sooner than you would otherwise.
do you have a tripod/head that can handle the size of the 100-400, or even the 70-200+2x for that matter? this is something some people forget to consider when buying those tank L lenses. while many tripod/heads will still be able to physically handle the weight, meaning they won't colapse, that doesn't necessarily mean they are steady with that thing mounted on top.
why do you need that range? are you getting in to sports photography, want to do wildlife, or simply shoot candids from a quiet and safe distance?
is the absolute best picture quality possible your main objective, or is a slight drop off acceptable?
for what it's worth, that's what I do...I strap on the 2x with my 70-200IS, most often onto my 20D so that I have a 600mm+ range, and I've had tremendous results.
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 14:22:06. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 02:29:11 PM · #6 |
We have lots of eagles around here during the winter. They sit on the ice and fish in the unfrozen water around the dams. Also since I bought the 5D, the 70-200 lost some range. I have a 1.4x but that only gets me out to 280mm. I would like a little more range.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 02:39:17 PM · #7 |
I think buying the 2x first might be the way to go. Play around with it, and if it meets your needs, you just saved over a grand. If it doesn't, and you find you do need the 100-400, then you've got a hell of a long range with the 2x and the 100-400.
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 14:39:34. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 02:59:04 PM · #8 |
| By the 100-400. If you don't like it, I'll be the first one to buy it from you. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/11/2026 07:39:06 PM EST.
