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

[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]