Migrating from EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to ?

[neustar_eric]

I had thought this was a purchase I was going to make a while ago, but it did not happen. Hope to make it happen this year. As you can see, I'm planning on leaving my EF 70-300mm to one of the following two choices:





1) EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM + 1.4 extender


or


2) EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM





If there is a third option, please let me know.





Thanks in advance,


Eric





PS: I'm currently using an EOS 40D. My primary interest is wildlife photography. I'd originally thought of option 2, but I think option 1 might be better as I'll be getting a much faster lens which in my mind will offset the lack of reach I'd get as opposed to option 2 (my original choice). Any input appreciated!

[District_History_Fan]

Do you consider your current lens fast enough for the shooting you do? If so, my choice would be for the 100-400L.

[Jarhead5811]

I'm using anXSi with an old (circa 1997) EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USMII to take pictures of birds, squirrels and deer.Eventually I'd like to get an EF70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM with1.4x & 2.0X extenders. I thought about the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM but believe the EF70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM with1.4X & 2.0X extenders would be much more versatile. I've been more disappointed with how slow my old lens is than it's reach. I'd use the lens without extenders in low light, when the deer tend to be most active. I've got lots of pics of clear backgrounds and blurry deer. Mostly I though, it would be easier to justify the purchase of a renowned portrait lens to the Wife.


I think the EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM & 1.4X combo would be a more cost effective option but can't sell the wife on something so specialized.

[unjx]

You may also want to consider the EF 70-200mm f/4 L (non IS).


This is truly 'the' sleeper lens in the Canon Luxury lineup. You will save a ton of money, (and weight) and the quality of the photos are incredible. It also makes an excellent portrait lens. Perfect for a trip to the Zoo as well. This would be a really big step up from your current zoom.


But I see you are primary to wildlife. Distance is just such huge factor and your ability to pull images is pretty much limited by your budget, i.e. how much are you willing to spend to get the farthest reaching lens, OR or course your ability to be very patient and extremely quiet. The EF 100-400mm will give you a lot of flexibility, especially with composition. I think that the EF 300mm f/4.0 L would be great too. Primes rule.


All lenses mentioned are first class, you can't lose. Really think about what you are going to be shooting, and how much flexibility you really do need.


-- Or you could just be done with it and buy one of those Phoenix 2500mm lens for 250 bucks! (just kidding) --


Good times.

[Daniel Browning]

For wildlife, it's the 100-400, hands down. The only other option to consider in this price range is the 400mm f/5.6 prime, which has higher image quality but lacks zoom and IS. Everything else is shorter or lower quality. Only consider the shorter lenses (e.g. 70-200) if you're certain you'll use those focal lengths often enough without the TC. If the long end is more important, then that's where you have to focus.

[MVers]

My primary interest is wildlife photography.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





100-400. If you can afford to, keep your 70-300IS--you will want it for the smaller size and lighter weight...think travel lens.

[MVers]

Eventually I'd like to get an EF70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM with1.4x &amp; 2.0X extenders. I thought about the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM but believe the EF70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM with1.4X &amp; 2.0X extenders would be much more versatile.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Not to derail the thread but this is a bad plan. The 70-200/2.8IS with the 1.4x provides iffy performance, with the 2x its completely unusable. Check out Bryan's head to heads between the 100-400 and 70-200 w/ TC's...perhaps they will make you change your mind if I hadn't already.

[chrispy43]

Not to derail the thread but this is a bad plan. The 70-200/2.8IS with the 1.4x provides iffy performance, with the 2x its completely unusable. Check out Bryan's head to heads between the 100-400 and 70-200 w/ TC's...perhaps they will make you change your mind if I hadn't already.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>






Define completely unusable? I have the 2x TC and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and have used it several times with decent success. There is noticeable distortion and some added softness when viewed at 100%, however, that combination is far from completely unusable. After cropping and resizing to around 1200px I can no longer see the distortion or softness.


Optically, I find the 70-200mm superior to the 100-400mm. I also find the 100-400 horrible to use (I very much dislike the push/pull).


Either way, at 400mm and f/5.6, it had better be a bright sunny day or you had better be shooting a still subject.


The 70-200mm f/2.8 is far more versatile and it's MUCH faster. It is absolutely one of my favorite lenses and is also highly regarded and recommended by Bryan. I'd recommend going with it.

[MVers]

Define completely unusable?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Completely Unusable ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&amp;Camera=9&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLIComp=6&amp;AP IComp=2&amp;LensComp=103&amp;CameraComp=9&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLI =4&amp;API=0): The lenses AF is compromised and is dreadfully slow. The lenses IQ is severely affected--color contrast, sharpness are compromised. The lens is a very poor performer with a 2x TC, perhaps you have lower standards, but it is what it is. The 70-200/2.8IS is faster on its own, but with a TC does not perform anywhere near the 100-400. As for versatility, it all depends on what you shoot. If you indoor shoot sports, you have a point...if you're talking wildlife you don't. You are attempting to compare two entirely different lenses. Generally speaking the 70-200/2.8IS is more versatile than the 500/4, does that mean its a better lens for wildlife photography? TBH it doesn't sound like you have ever shot with the 100-400, if you had you wouldn't be making the comments you are about it...specifically when comparing it to a 70-200 with a 2x.


As for shooting only still subjects...


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2143/2452699199_0c81851eb8_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2259/2217726904_488407dc66_b.jpg


or on bright sunny days...


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3340/3206902061_e58c43d26d_b.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3106/3223802235_81fd6a5762_b.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3438/3223799403_b7b9cdbe26_b.jpg


Also, if you could, can you post examples of usable images taken with the 70-200/2.8IS and 2x TC combo...you've got me curious.

[chrispy43]

Completely Unusable ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&amp;Camera=9&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLIComp=6&amp;AP IComp=2&amp;LensComp=103&amp;CameraComp=9&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLI =4&amp;API=0): The lenses AF is compromised and is dreadfully slow. The lenses IQ is severely affected--color contrast, sharpness are compromised. The lens is a very poor performer with a 2x TC, perhaps you have lower standards, but it is what it is. The 70-200/2.8IS is faster on its own, but with a TC does not perform anywhere near the 100-400. As for versatility, it all depends on what you shoot. If you indoor shoot sports, you have a point...if you're talking wildlife you don't. You are attempting to compare two entirely different lenses. The 70-200/2.8IS is more versatile than the 500/4, does that mean its a better lens for wildlife photography? TBH it doesn't sound like you have ever shot with the 100-400, if you had you wouldn't be making the comments you are about it...specifically when comparing it to a 70-200 with a 2x.


Also, if you could, can you post examples of usable images taken with the 20-200/2.8IS and 2x TC combo...you've got me curious.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>






Perhaps you misread what I said. The one image you posted of a moving subject was on a bright sunny day. All the other images were taken of subjects that weren't moving at the time. You validated what I said.


I assume you mean the 70-200 and not "20-200". I am not a wildlife photographer (I used the 100-400 for sports on an overcast day, the horror!) but I will head up a local mountain with my 70-200 w/ 2x TC and see if I can shoot some birds so we can compare apples to apples. Remember, I did acknowledge the distortion as well as the softness. Maybe my standards are lower. I guess we shall see.


Throwing the example of the 500mm f/4 in there is moot. 1) it is a prime 2) it is a longer focal length 3) I was comparing 400mm f/5.6 to 400mm f/5.6.

[MVers]

Perhaps you misread what I said. The
one image you posted of a moving subject was on a bright sunny day.
All the other images were taken of subjects that weren't moving at the
time. You validated what I said.


I assume you mean the 70-200 and not "20-200". I am not a wildlife
photographer (I used the 100-400 for sports on an overcast day, the
horror!) but I will head up a local mountain with my 70-200 w/ 2x TC
and see if I can shoot some birds so we can compare apples to apples.
Remember, I did acknowledge the distortion as well as the softness.
Maybe my standards are lower. I guess we shall see.


Throwing the example of the 500mm f/4 in there is moot. 1) it is a
prime 2) it is a longer focal length 3) I was comparing 400mm f/5.6
to 400mm f/5.6.





I did not "misread" anything In fact if you re-read what you typed you you may understand: "it had better be a bright sunny day OR you had better be shooting a still subject". The term OR separates the two, the term AND on the other hand would link the two. Unfortunately for you, you seem to have worded it wrong. Either way, the 70-200/2.8IS with a 2x TC cannot perform on the same level as the 100-400 any day of the week under any circumstance. As for the comparrison issue, you made an attmept to compare a bare 70-200/2.8IS to a 100-400 by saying "The 70-200mm f/2.8 is far more versatile and it's much faster", that is where the 500/4 came in. Two entirely different lenses intended for different uses. You may also want to take a time out and read the OP again. Notice the OP stating the use for the lens--wildlife photography (NOT sports, which the 100-400 does do well outdoors in good light). Since you do not shoot wildlife, and no offense, how are you qualified to make recommendations?

[chrispy43]

I did not "misread" anything In fact if you re-read what you typed you you may understand: "it had better be a bright sunny day OR you had better be shooting a still subject". The term OR separates the two, the term AND on the other hand would link the two. Unfortunately for you, you seem to have worded it wrong.


Actually, I worded it exactly how I intended. Neither the 400mm f/5.6 prime, 100-400mm at 400 f/5.6 or 70-200mm 2x teleconverter at 400mm f/5.6 are great low light performers; they're too slow. Your second image has a blurred foot. Again, you've validated my point.



Either way, the 70-200/2.8IS with a 2x TC cannot perform on the same level as the 100-400 any day of the week under any circumstance.


I'll give you that. I conceded that as soon as I said that it added distortion and softness. I also said that at 1200px the difference is negligible.



You may also want to take a time out and read the OP again. Notice the OP stating the use for the lens--wildlife photography (NOT sports, which the 100-400 does do well outdoors in good light). Since you do not shoot wildlife, and no offense, how are you qualified to make recommendations?



Wow. Who knew the optical quality varies from sports to wildlife. I was unaware that my lenses would perform differently while shooting different subjects. Come on. The optical quality doesn't change based on your environment.


Back to my original point which is the 70-200mm is a far more versatile lens, it's twice as fast at 200mm than the 100-400mm is at 400mm and for a few hundred dollars he can buy an accessory that will give him the same focal length with the same f/stop with some distortion and softness. He'd also have a lens that he could use for other purposes, which although he states his primary interest is wildlife, I'm sure that's not all that you or he shoots, so why limit yourself to a lens that serves almost exclusively a single purpose? Furthermore, going from a $500 lens to the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L w/ 2x tc is probably still going to yield better results than his old lens.


This discussion has been had countless times. There's compelling points for both lenses. Like I said, the 100-400mm was beyond useless to me on an overcast day taking pictures of 3 year olds moving infinitely slower than most wildlife. My 70-200mm yielded FAR better results (see: actually stopping the action) even with the crop. I stand by my recommendation.


I will happily post SOOC bird images ASAP using the 70-200mm w/ 2x tc.

[Joel Bookhammer]

Hey Eric, I enjoy wildlife photography as well. I currently use the 70-200 2.8 IS and it is a great lens, but for wildlife I find that I am always wanting something alittle more. I have used the the 70-200 with a non-canon 2x and found that it did focus alot slower, and the images were noticable degraded at 100%, but not unuseable (and that was with a cheap 2x). I personally have not used the 100-400 but if you were opting more towards wildlife I would choose the 100-400, from what I have seen in reviews its a great lens in its own right. The push pull zoom does take a moment to get used too though, but in the end I thinkyou will like the results

[MVers]

Are you seriously that ignorant? Are you still making an attempt to proclaim the 70-200+2xTC is better suited for wildlife (or any type of photography) than the 100-400? I would love to see any photographer, for that matter, try and tell me the 70-200/2.8+2xTC performs better than the 100-400 in any way shape or form. If you shot wildlife you would know that there is a significant difference between it and sports but since you don't it seems you have tripped over your own tongue, again spouting nonsense. Optical quality doesn't change, subjects do. AF wise the 70-200+2x is much slower than the 100-400. IQ wise the 100-400 is much better than the 70-200+2x. As for what he or I shoot...the OP stated, once again, he would like to use the lens for wildlife. Nowhere did he mention sports. As for me, I own both the 100-400 and the 70-200/2.8IS and I use them each for different types of shooting. There is no one lens solution in photography. In any case you're recommendation is a terrible one, if you would like to make an attempt to prove me wrong and settle this argument I'd suggest posting a poll on Fred Miranda's Canon mount SLR section based on performance between the 100-400 and the 70-200+2xTC for wildlife photography. And I would also like to see your results with the combo...be sure to post.


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/371750/0?keyword=70-200,2X,TC#3167673


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/366769/0?keyword=70-200,2X,TC#3125727

[chrispy43]

Clearly you are missing everything I have said, twice now.


Don't bother replying again. It's not worth the read.

[MVers]

Clearly you are missing everything I have said, twice now.


Don't bother replying again. It's not worth the read.



<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Clearly you missed the point of the thread...since your first post.


PS. I know it feels pretty terrible when you realize you're wrong about something, but I do not appreciate threatening emails. I'd suggest you think before typing up another one :(

[Oren]

Ok guys that's enough. You both made good points (well one of you made much much more, but we don't want a flamewar here so I won't say who).


Please stop it right here.


Cheers [B]


[:P]