Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens or other options?

1Dx4me wrote:

Adam2 wrote:

Sandyld7 wrote:

Adam2 wrote:

So, I know that you are agonizing over the purchase and wondering whether you can shoot wild life or sports. It's freezing cold here and the light is fading (I'm shooting at ISO 1600) but I ran outside in my backyard to take a couple of quick snapshots to give you some relative ideas. No, they aren't identical settings and therein lies some differences when you look at the images...

You are so right! I have been agonizing over this for weeks. I wanted to make the purchase now while the sales and rebates were going on, and for the 100-400, that ends in a day or so.

Wow! Thanks so much for taking the time to go get examples for me! It is freezing here too, and I am in Texas.

The biggest issue when shooting "long" with the 100-400 is the loss of light. The largest aperture with a 1.4x is f8.

For the most part, I need the 100-400 to get action shots during the daylight (hopefully some wildlife too!!) and will try it in the stadium lights sans an extender. The 400 will get across the field. I just can't afford anything else that will get a larger aperture at the longer reach. Not right now, anyway. I would use the extender when trying to get wildlife during the day, so that I at least have some way of getting shots beyond 400.

Contrast that with the 300 f2.8 + 2x III TC f/5.6 (I think this image is f6.3?) The largest difference between using a faster lens is that one can use a higher Tv, reduce the effects of motion blur, and/or lower Av to produce a better bokeh or effect (though you can do the later in PP). Now, these were all hand held and don't really demonstrate the potential sharpness of plopping the lenses on a gimbal/tripod but it gives you some idea of what you could do walking around.

I do pack a tripod or monopod whenever possible.

300 f/2.8 IS II + 2x iii TC (600 mm) cropped around 50%

100-400 IS II +1.4x iii TC (540 mm) cropped around 50% Note the f difference!

This last image is simply to illustrate that even with a 1.4x tc, the 100-400 II IS can AF in "tougher" conditions. Low light, backlit, busy background, etc. Unbelievably, this was shot hand held at around 1/50 sec. No, it's not anything that I would print or display and if you want razor sharp images you need a tripod, fast shutter speeds, and good light. But my Sigma 150-600 could never do this and it would just hunt and sputter...

I get the idea!! That is one of the main things I needed to know to make this choice!!

100-400 IS II +1.4x iii TC (540 mm) cropped around 25% to demonstrate relative effectiveness of IS and tough AF conditions...

Does this help?

Yes it helps!! There is just no way I can afford that 300 f/2.8 right now, but one day!

So - I just bit the bullet and bought the 100-400 M2 and the 1.4 extender. Thanks for all of your efforts and input!

Yes, I wasn't implying that you would need the extender for typical sports shooting. The 400 mm reach is fine for most outdoor sports that you would shoot and the AF is crisp and precise in the daytime. It may struggle at night under the lights and it would be tough to use indoors. The 300 f/2.8 is an odd FL which was too short for soccer, football, etc.

that is interesting because i frequently use tc 1.4x III/2.0x III with my canon 300 f2.8 II and that gives me an instant high IQ long FL up to 600mm f5.6 reach! i sure don't see anything odd about that

its an odd focal length for most sports played on a field; not long enough to shoot cross field, too long for side line/near action.  The 400 f/2.8 was a better choice.

(used my 400 f/2.8 w/wo the 1.4 tc) and too long for sideline work (would have another body with the 70-200). I used to like it for swimming, racing, and some equestrian events, etc. I wouldn't purchase one outright now and what I was trying to demonstrate was that at nearly equivalent FL's the 100-400 IS II performs pretty well (apart from the issues I eluded to). Modern day sensors and AF has improved significantly and I remember the days when ISO 800 was ok and 1600 was dangerous territory. Today, you can push the ISO way up as long as you expose to the right so the difference of a stop of aperture is less important (other than some potential AF issues which would take too long to discuss).

I hope you ordered from a reliable dealer and all I can say is try things out and see if they work for you. The lens is fairly lightweight and compact compared to the larger primes and is nicely made. Adding the 1.4x TC is negligible in terms of size and weight and I think the combination will serve you well for a multitude of purposes. Worse come to worse, you can always try it out and send it back. Just don't send in the rebates in until you are sure you want to keep them.