Reading mode: Light Dark

Replace my 70-300IS with 70-200L4 IS + TC 1,4 or 100-400IS???

Go to last post
T

twan

Senior Member
Messages
2,798
Reaction score
117
Location
NL
I go to alaska next summer and consider to replace my 70-300IS. Those two options are same priced:

70-200L4 IS + TC 1,4 or 100-400IS

According the tests at photozone.de, IQ seems better with the 70-200IS combi with a bit less reach.

Pro for the 70-200 is weight. It's way lighter then the 100-400 and has not the push-pull mechanisme not everyone seems to like.

What should I do?

If I buy the 70-200, what TC should I buy? The canon or kenko pro?

Thanks guys
 
I have never used the 100-400, but if you go the 70-200 f4 L IS route, it works great with the Kenko Pro 1.4X TC. The Kenko is also a bit cheaper and works on some other lenses that the Canon won't.
 
I have had the 70-300 IS in the past, now I have the 70-200/4 IS + Kenko Pro 1.4 TC.

The 70-200 + 1.4 TC is definitely sharper at 280mm wide open than the 70-300 at 300mm wide open, more than enough to make up for the loss of 20mm in focal length.

If I was going to Alaska I would prefer to have the 100-400 for the extra reach. Whether you should buy this lens could depend on how much of an issue the extra weight and the push-pull of the 100-400 are and also what would you use the lens for after going to Alaska.

I chose the Kenko Pro 1.4 TC over the Canon because it is cheaper, lighter, smaller, works on more lenses (like my 100mm macro) and has just as good image quality as the Canon.
--
http://www.pbase.com/cartlett
 
aha oke and what about IQ and contrast of the 70-200+1,4TC combi?

yes I don't know what to expect with the 30D+100-400 in case o weight. THe 30 is about 0,80kg and the lens 1400... so 2,2 kg
 
twan said:
I go to alaska next summer and consider to replace my 70-300IS. Those
two options are same priced:
Click to expand...
The 70-200 F4 IS + good TC is around $1150. For $150 more you could have the 100-400IS right now with the Canon instant rebate at Amazon and BH Photo. If your goal is wildlife, go for the 100-400IS. The Rebate ends I think in middle February.If your goal is Alaska, you need reach. the 100-400 is a no brainer.
 
twan said:
and I'm also a bit confused by the compare at this site

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=9&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

so is it worth the 100-400 with only seemd to be a bit better at 300+
Click to expand...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=9&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

The 100-400 seems to be much better at 300mm at 6.3. The 70-300IS is a great lens, but it's weakness is at 300mm below F8.
 
..and my 100-400 is as sharp at 280mm as the 70-200 + Canon 1.4 Extender. The A/F of the 100-400 is at least as fast as well. You will also get A/F in good light with a Tamron or Kenko 1.4 converter on the 100-400 - giving you 560mm. This is twice the reach of the 70-200 + converter combo. The image quality is still quite good at this focal length. As a previous poster said - if you're shooting wildlife, the 100-400 is a no brainer. I love the push-pull zoom - it is perfect for when subjects (in my case aircraft and birds) fly towards or away from you - you just push or pull the zoom to frame the subject - it's completely natural.
100-400 at 400mm:



100-400 at 560mm (with 1.4 converter) - and 3200ISO:

 
I agree with the posters who say to go with the 100-400. You need all the focal length you can get for wildlife photography in Alaska. I used my 500mm +1.4x the most but if you can't afford it, the 100-400 will work. You might consider getting a 1.4 and using it with the 100-400. You'll lose some light but may be able to increase ISO to compensate.
 
Hi guys,

My first posting so your help would be great. I currently have a Canon 75-300 IS, and am contemplating changing this for the 70-200 L4 IS. Is this lens compatible with a Canon 1.4 or x2 converter as I do need the additional mm. Also has anyone experience of both. My main uses are wildlife and candid travel shots, very little sports
Cheers
 
Does anyone has sample somehwere on the net about the 70-200L4IS + KenKo pro 1,4tc?
 
twan said:
I go to alaska next summer and consider to replace my 70-300IS. Those
two options are same priced:

70-200L4 IS + TC 1,4 or 100-400IS

According the tests at photozone.de, IQ seems better with the
70-200IS combi with a bit less reach.

Pro for the 70-200 is weight. It's way lighter then the 100-400 and
has not the push-pull mechanisme not everyone seems to like.

What should I do?

If I buy the 70-200, what TC should I buy? The canon or kenko pro?

Thanks guys
Click to expand...
You won't notice a difference with the 70-200/4 unless you actually plan to use the 200 @ f/4. It's too marginal.
 
what do you mean?

Should the 70-200F4IS + kenko pro 1,4 be better then my current 70-300IS? at 300mm?
 
twan said:
what do you mean?
Should the 70-200F4IS + kenko pro 1,4 be better then my current
70-300IS? at 300mm?
Click to expand...
If it is better at 280 mm it is very, very marginal. Academic. So the only point would be to get a lens that would add actual functionality, which is the 200 f/4 without the extender. Remember also that with the extender, you're working a 100-280/5.6 lens, which is much slower and less wide at the wide end than your 70-300 IS. Unless you are going to put the extender on and off all the time. Going for the huge 100-400 would be a much better idea.

If you want weight effective, you could get a 200/2.8 and use that with a 2x extender. It is still smaller and lighter than the 100-400, and without the extender you've got a fast lens that will double as a long portrait lens.

There are other options like the 400 zooms from Sigma and Tokina that are lighter than the 100-400. There is also the Sigma 50-500 and the Tamron 200-500 which are quite good, but there is no IS.
 
..very much difference in image quality between a 70-300IS, a 70-200L f4IS + converter and a 100-400L. I base this on my copies of the 2 L lenses and 2 friends' copies of the 70-300IS (one of which I owned briefly). Now there may be more variation in the 70-300IS image quality, as several folks think it is a bit soft at 300mm, but the 2 copies I have used have been remarkably sharp. The colour is a bit cooler and a little less saturated from the non-L lens, but not enough to worry about. Of course, as stated previously, the L lenses give you much better build quality, much faster and more accurate A/F and, in the case of the 70-200, an extra stop (?) of light at 200mm. The Ls are also much "nicer" to use. If you are considering the change simply on IQ grounds, I think you may be disappointed unless your current (?) 70-300IS isn't a particularly sharp example.
 
Another vote for the 100-400. Before purchasing, I tried the 70-200 2.8 and 4. Both had great IQ. Toyed with the idea of what you're talking about by adding the teleconverter. One concern I had was losing the 30 mm on the short end. After purchasing both the 100-400 and the sigma 80-400, I sold the 80-400. I figured out quickly that when I had the 100-400 on, I stayed mostly in the 250-400 range. I've used it mostly for wildlife and sports. Even shooting wildlife close, I still find myself going to 400 to get those 'wow' shots.

Sorry for the large image, but wanted to show an example. This was on a monopod with a moving ostrich on a heavily overcast day, so not as sharp as I'd like, but shows the detail nonetheless.



--
personal website: http://www.haydenandlaura.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top