| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2007 06:51:44 PM · #1 |
| ok hears the deal would love to have both but i'm a poor slob so should i get a 70-200 with a 2x or just get the 100-400 any ideas reasons thanks for your thoughts |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 07:01:45 PM · #2 |
I have been renting both latley and I would say the 70-200 by far ! That lens is incedible and very versitile. The 100-400 is really nice, but I would trade 75% of my lenses for (1) 70-200. Just my opinion.
kopa21
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 07:06:37 PM · #3 |
Guess your thinking of the 70-200F/2.8? tbh the 100-400 is one of my least used lenses and rarely take it out with me now and the 70-200 is so much more versitile. I'd be inclined to get the 1.4 rather than 2x btw. |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 07:12:31 PM · #4 |
If you opt for the 70-200, don't think that using it with a 2x converter is going to yield great images. It will be soft wide open, so you'll have to stop down, probably two stops to get reasonably sharp images. That means f/11. Can you say slow lens combo?? Also, only the f/2.8 version will still allow you to AF with a 2x converter.
Bottom line, if you *know* you need 400mm, the 100-400 is a better bet. |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 07:14:14 PM · #5 |
Depends on what you're shooting.
Outside sports ... definitely the 100-400. The 70-200/2.8 is an awesome lense ... but it loses some of its desirable qualities as you add a teleconverter onto it in order to reach across the field. (I shot that lens with a 2x converter for a long time ... now that I have the 100-400 I'm never going back)
Indoor sports ... the 100-400 is out of the question. Too slow (aperture wise). The 70-200 will serve you well here. But an even faster lens would be better (85/1.8 perhaps?).
Portraiture ... the 70-200 is the perfect lens on a full frame camera, almost as good on a crop camera, and the 100-400 is generally too long.
Anyway, like I said, it all depends on what you're going to do with it.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 07:18:50 PM · #6 |
like i said i'd love to have both because i can see the use of both --i shoot a lot of motorcycle races but if the 70 - 200 isn't as sharp with the 2x i guess it should be the 100-400 thanks
Message edited by author 2007-11-17 19:19:20. |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 07:38:13 PM · #7 |
Guess it depends how close you can get to the bikes? Looking at a couple of shots with your 70-300 I reckon the 70-200 and 1.4 would do you well. Took this at my first Rally, 70-200F/2.8 + 1.4, its an uncropped image.
 |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 07:46:59 PM · #8 |
Then there's this ... with the 100-400mm lens:
More from that series found here: //www.dterryphotography.com/gallery/3046222
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 07:54:01 PM · #9 |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 08:06:22 PM · #10 |
I am greatful and lucky enough to have both. I got the 100-400 first and only later the 70-200 f/2.8. If I have to do it all over again, I will get the 70-200 with a x2 converter. With the converter you lose 2 f/ stops, leaving you on equal footing with the slower 100-400L. But now, with a 2x converter my 100-400L becomes a wopping 800+.......
My advise, though, get the 70-200mmL f/2.8, you will never want another lense.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 08:32:23 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Gibun:
If I have to do it all over again, I will get the 70-200 with a x2 converter. With the converter you lose 2 f/ stops, leaving you on equal footing with the slower 100-400L. |
Not quite. The image quality of the 100-400 (sans converter) far and away exceeds what you get out of the 70-200 with 2x converter. That's why I said that when I switched from the 70-200+2x to the 100-400, I'm never going back. It's definitely better.
HOWEVER, the thing that was nice about shooting the 70-200+2x converter was that, as the sun begins to set, you need more light. And so I'd usually just take the converter off and keep shooting. Now I have to carry *both* lenses in order to do that!
Originally posted by Gibun:
But now, with a 2x converter my 100-400L becomes a wopping 800+....... |
But... You lose the ability to auto-focus. And your minimum aperture (at 400mm) becomes f/11, making it hard to see what you're pointing the camera at unless it's broad daylight.
Message edited by author 2007-11-17 20:33:11.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 08:37:19 PM · #12 |
| I think they are both great lenses, but they are very different. For zoo photos, birds, outdoor sports, the 100-400 has the reach and sharpness that is just great. For general purpose, and portraits, the 70-200f2.8 gives great sharpness and wonderful bokeh. It depends on what you are using it for. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 10:34:12 PM EDT.
