Printable View
Im looking at buying a new lens as i want more reach with my photos. I have at the moment one of the basic kit lenses, the EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS, but i cant get as close as i would like to while i am shooting some friends sport matches.
Which would be a better idea, the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM and add on a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter or the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM?
thanks for your ideas.
100-400.
It depends on what you're going to be shooting. I had the same dilemma, but it came down to which was more practical. The 400 was so tempting, but what did I need most, 400mm, or a sharper image, with faster focus, and a bigger f stop?
Since I do weddings, I went with the latter. Come to find out, the 200 is more than enough. I'd never be able to use the 400 at a wedding, in most realistic situations anyway. As it is, I was needing to step back more than I thought. I'm probably going to pick up a 1.4x for sporting events, as it's a cheap way to get out to 280mm. The 2x degrades quality a little more.
So in the end, it really depends on what you want to shoot. Both are awesome lenses, but the quality of the 2.8, mixed with the more useable range is what sold me.
im using it mainly for my family and friends sport games but also a general lens? i felt i wasnt getting enough reach with my 55-250 so would the 1.4x make the quality much worse?
I think you'll be better off with the 100-400mm lens.
IMO, using a 2x teleconverter is never a good idea - image quality suffers too much. If you look at [url="http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0]Bryan's ISO 12233 comparison of the 100-400mm to the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS + 2x Extender[/url], you'll see what I mean - the 70-200+2x is noticeably softer.
A 1.4x extender has much less of an impact on image quality than a 2x, but it's still an impact. When combined with a very sharp lens like a supertelephoto prime or the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkII (which is sharper than the MkI version), the 1.4x is a fairly good option. If you compare the 100-400mm at 300mm with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkI at 280mm, the 100-400 is sharper with the 70-200mm at f/4 (and it's a stop faster), but at f/5.6 they are similar. The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII + 1.4x at f/4 is actually as sharp as the 100-400mm where the ranges overlap, and it's a stop faster too. But the MkII version of the 70-200mm zoom costs substantially more than the MkI version.
<div>
[quote=tylermartin]i felt i wasnt getting enough reach with my 55-250 so would the 1.4x make the quality much worse?[/quote]
</div>
The IQ of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkI + 1.4x will be a little better than the EF-S 55-250mm, but not much. 280mm is not significantly longer than 250mm. If you feel that you can't get close enough with a 250mm lens, a 280mm lens isn't really going to help you.
The only downside to the 100-400mm is that out at the long end, it's f/5.6 which is fairly slow for stopping action unless it's a pretty bright day. Since your 55-250mm is also f/5.6 at the long end, you will know what to expect there at least. The only longer+faster options are the supertele primes, which run several thousand dollars.
Personally, I use theEF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]LIS USM for wildlife and birds, and theEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM mainly for family shots on trips, in the yard, etc. If I'm going out to shoot wildlife/birds in the rain, I'll use the 70-200 II + 1.4x extender, since that combo with my 7D is weather-sealed. But on dry days, I'll choose the 100-400mm over the 70-200 II+1.4x when I want reach.
Well if you have a 250 and it's not enough, then I suggest going with the 400. You definitely don't want to use a 2x if you can avoid it. The 400 will offer much better quality. It'll get the reach that you need, without sacrificing IQ.
I definitely want the 400 for sports, but I'll have to pay off what I've got first lol but it sounds like the lens for you!
I second what Neuro said except...
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I will point out that the 300mm 2.8, 400mm 2.8 and 500 4 primes are superb with 2x TCs, especially stopped down one stop. I used a 500 f/4 with a 2X TC at f/8 and f/9 and the results were superb. BTW - Why doesn't Canon make a 1.7X TC like Nikon? [:^)]
But since the OP isn't considering a $8000 lens, I suggest that he choose purely based on focal length and which he prefers.
If you don't need the fast aperture, the 100-400 is way more versatile and I don't think you sacrifice much IQ.
I use my 100-400 way more than my 70-200 2.8 IS. The only time I use 70-200 lately is indoor events.
I faced the same dilemma and bought the 70-200. The fast f-stop and low light capabilities were more important to me than the reach was. If you are more concerned about reach than low-light ability, I'd recommend the 100-400. It is an outstanding lens.