Reading mode: Light Dark

Long End of Canon Zooms (400mm)

Go to last post
D

Digpics

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
385
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Can anyone who has used the following lenses please provide opinions on the long end (400mm effective) of the following Canon zooms / telephoto? Will be using with a 7D for wildlife.

70-200 2.8 IS with 2.0 Canon extender
vs.
100-400 4.5 to 5.6 IS
vs.
400 5.6 telephoto

The 70-200 2.8 IS with 2.0 extender would be 5.6 and have IS.

The 100-400 would be 5.6 and have IS.

The 400 would be 5.6 and not have IS.

Please let me know your thoughts on IQ, sharpness, contrast and usability.

Thank-you for your help.
 
I shoot mostly birds (and I have been mostly using a 7D for the past several months). I have used all of the lenses you listed and my far my first choice is the 400mm f/5.6L USM, my second choice would be the 100-400 and my last choice would be the 70-200 w/2x II.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
PeaceFrog said:
I I have used all of the lenses you listed and my far my first choice is the 400mm f/5.6L USM, my second choice would be the 100-400 and my last choice would be the 70-200 w/2x II.
Click to expand...
Without the benefit of actually using these lenses that would be my assumption. Prime is better than zoom. Zoom without extender is better than zoom with extender.

However if you have the time I would greatly appreciate more detail. :-)
 
The prime does have the best optical quality followed closely by the 100-400 and then the 70-200 in my experience is a little further behind the other two.

Obviously the prime doesn’t have IS so that can be a disadvantage. The prime also has a longer minimum focusing distance which sometimes can be a pain. However, the 100-400 has less magnification at minimum focusing distance which can sometimes take away from the advantage of being able to focus closer. In my experience the prime has the fastest and most accurate AF of the three.

Overall the bottom line for me is that I have gotten the best results from the prime and that is the main reason I prefer it.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
I would agree with that order. IMHO

Forget the 70-200 with x2, in fact using the x2 on anything other than the seriously big Ls is about equal to cropping a 200mm shot and then upresing to 400mm equivalent. I tried it for a while and then sold the x2.

Love the 100-400 (well , the zoom function and IS), as others have stated it's a little short at around 380mm in reality and perhaps a little soft at the long end when compared to the prime.

Now pretty much only use the 400 5.6, really sharp with great colours and contrast, however no IS so monopod or tripod unless the light is really good. I do tend to use a x1.4 with it as I'm full frame but considering a 7D. Seems I'm always on the edge of shutter speed/ISO requirements.

My conclusion is to get the 400 prime if you're just using it for birding in fairly good light, but also buy a sturdy monopod or tripod. If it's walkaround the countryside snapping what you happen across, then get the 100-400.

If I had the money it would be the 500 f4 IS, but I could get a couple of 7Ds and more for that. Canon seem to be very clever at pricing these smaller Ls, sort of get you hooked at reasonable money and leave you wanting just a bit more...
 
500mm isnt even in nearly the same ball park financially!

70-200 2.8 IS + 2x is usuable but dont expect razor sharp shots

This is a pic with a 5dii and 100-400... sharp enough for me and more versatile than the prime


PeaceFrog said:
For what it’s worth I think the 500 is much better to have for bird photography than a couple of 7D’s. If I had to choose between the two my decision would be very easy.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Click to expand...
 
Well in the post I was responding to it was suggested that you could have a couple of 7D’s which is starting to get into the ballpark.

Your shot is very nice and certainly plenty sharp and detailed for me. However, European Robins are pretty famous for being very approachable. For more challenging species the 500 proves that it is very well worth its price.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
I was reading the EOS-1D forum and came across this post from LDunn1 regarding the difference between the 700-200 2.8IS with 2x converter and the 100-400. I hope it is OK to cut and paste someone's note?

......I did back-2-backs of the 100-400 vs the 70-200L f2.8 IS (with & without the 2x converter). This was on 100asa print film & I printed up just to 6x4 - logic being that if I could see a difference at this size then the improvement was worth having.

The 70-200L f2.8 IS on its own I could see was superior at the same range & aperture to the 100-400. Not massively, but certainly noticeable - after all both are brilliant lenses. The 70-200 was still better with both lenses wide open.

When the 2x converter was bought into play the results were very difficult to distinguish between the two - after some close examination I could just about identify the slightly better one & that was still the 70-200 plus converter.

I went with the 70-200 plus converter route as it gave me more flexibility:-
similar quality & speed from 200-400
faster & better quality from 70-200

very slightly greater range (which only really comes into play for portraits I find)
The central AF's tend to work better with f2.8 or faster too.

Additionally, I subsequently spoke to a friend who had gone for the 100-400 & had returned it several times to the dealer & got replacement models due to dust in the lenses. My Friends take on it was that the trombone effect zoom tends to pump air in & out as you zoom & stirs up & maybe draws in dust which can then settle on the internal elements. He wished he had gone for the 70-200L 2.8 IS plus converter.

So my approach would be to sell your 70-200 f4, go for the f2.8 plus converter & NOT go for the 100-400.
 
Don't have and haven't tried any of others listed but I do have the 70-200 F4is - but when asking about the 400mm 5.6 - all I can say is that since I bought mine, I have used non of my other lenses on my 7D - I just love it - mostly for wildlife/bif shots (attempts) etc, but I even have some nice portrait style shots taken with it - it just refuses to be removed!!!!
--
Jayboo
 
The free "taste" leaves you wanting more...

I can't afford a 7D, much less a 500mm but I want both. I guess I'll have to start knocking over liquor stores to support my habit.
 
I have used the 100-400 extensively and have not had dust issues with it. The image quality is nearly as good as that of the 400mm f/5.6L and it is tremendously flexible.

Personally, I think that the push/pull zoom is the perfect kind of zoom for this type of lens. It is very fast and easy to use. When tracking a bird in flight, I find it is easy to acquire the bird at 100mm and then rapidly zoom to 400mm for the shot.

Romy Ocon uses the 100-400 on occasion and if it is good enough for a highly talented wildlife photographer like him, then I think it is definitely good enough for me!
 
I've owned and used all of these. The 400mm F: 5.6 is the sharpest, as you would expect. The 100-400mm zoom is excellent at 400mm, but some report that older models are not as good as the new ones.

The 70-200mm F: 4 and F: 8 with a 2X extender suffer with a 2x extender, but produce very usanle images that print well.

I've even used a 2X extender on my 400mm F: 5.6 and 40D. It focused accurately using a cheap tamron 2X non reporting extender on my 40D.

The problem I have is that 400mm is seldom long enough for wildlife. I am not usually able to get that close for truly wild animals.

I tried to photograph some gophers last week, for example. They were not far away, maybe 50 ft, but using my 200mm F4 with a 2X extender resulted in a image that had to be cropped to 1:1 to reasonably fill the frame. 800MM would have worked better.
 
biochemiker's experience matches mine -- I have a 100-400, and between the flexibility it offers for other uses, the easier acquiring of targets before zooming out, and the IS that lets me shoot handheld, I think it's a great lens. I'm sure the 400mm prime is a bit better optically, but for my own uses (sports as well as wildlife) it is too restrictive.
biochemiker said:
I have used the 100-400 extensively and have not had dust issues with it. The image quality is nearly as good as that of the 400mm f/5.6L and it is tremendously flexible.

Personally, I think that the push/pull zoom is the perfect kind of zoom for this type of lens. It is very fast and easy to use. When tracking a bird in flight, I find it is easy to acquire the bird at 100mm and then rapidly zoom to 400mm for the shot.

Romy Ocon uses the 100-400 on occasion and if it is good enough for a highly talented wildlife photographer like him, then I think it is definitely good enough for me!
Click to expand...
 
I find that my 100-400 totally outshines my 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter.

Have had the 100-400 for over a year and it is tack sharp and thus far, not a speck of noticable dust.

Have found though it does cost $300 to fix after a five foot drop onto concrete (still worked fine except for manual focus was very stiff and thus useless) but it was sharper when I received it back.
 
I'm in a similar situation as I want a longer lens. I already have the 1.4TC

I am thinking of the 300mm IS F4 with the TC. I assume this is a viable alternative to the other lenses mentioned in this thread (while also giving me a 300mm prime and some IS).
 
I went through the "how to get to 400mm" decision process a couple years ago.

The rules of thumb that everyone seems to agree on are:

1. A prime at its native FL is always better than a zoom with/without TC
2. A prime at its native FL is almost always better than a prime with a TC
3. A zoom at its native FL is always better than a zoom with a TC

Personally, I went with the 100-400L. The following test articles compare how well many popular "go long" Canon solutions work.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_70-200_sigma_70-200_tamron_canon_100-400.htm

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_supertele_test_200-300-400-600.htm

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_supertele_test-800-1200-1600.htm

--
(insert brag sheet here)
http://flickr.com/photos/mbloof
Technologist @ Large
  • Mark0
 
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