100-400 L IS or the 70-200L 2.8 Plus 2X tele

I am trying to decide which lens to buy. I am mainly interested in photographing my trips to the zoo. I also want to shoot baseball and football. I know that you need a 'fast' lens to do this but I am limited on my budget. What I want to know is would the 100-400 IS L work for both of these? The 70-200 2.8 L would give me the most flexablity I know but it would lack the IS since I can't afford that version.

What would you all do in this situation. Is the 70-200 2.8 L with Teleconverter close in sharpness to the 100-400?

Thanks.
--
Photo Noob

PhotoNoob said:

I am trying to decide which lens to buy. I am mainly interested in
photographing my trips to the zoo. I also want to shoot baseball
and football. I know that you need a 'fast' lens to do this but I
am limited on my budget. What I want to know is would the 100-400
IS L work for both of these? The 70-200 2.8 L would give me the
most flexablity I know but it would lack the IS since I can't
afford that version.

Click to expand...

Trips to the zoo: 100-400, 300/4 IS or 400/5.6 (I recommend the first two over the last one, though all are good)

Baseball and football, daytime: 70-200/4, 70-200/2.8, 100-400, 300/4 IS

Baseball and football, night: 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8 (second is awfully expensive, though some third-party makers sell 300/2.8s for a little less)

PhotoNoob said:

What would you all do in this situation. Is the 70-200 2.8 L with
Teleconverter close in sharpness to the 100-400?

Click to expand...

The 70-200 + 1.4x is about the same in sharpness to the 100-400. The 70-200 + 2x is clearly not as sharp. I'm basing this on my own observations with the non-IS 70-200/2.8 and the 100-400. The IS version might be sharper, but I seriously doubt it's as sharp as the 100-400. Also, when you add a 2x, AF performance slows more than the 100-400 without a TC.

HTH. If you're going to be shooting any evening football/baseball games, you need the f/2.8 lens and very high ISO, and the results should be excellent. I think the 70-200/2.8 sounds like a good option for you. The 100-400 is more a wildlife lens (and if you're considering that, also consider the 300/4 - cheaper and sharper).

--
Brian Kennedy
http://www.briankennedy.net/

PhotoNoob said:

I am trying to decide which lens to buy. I am mainly interested in
photographing my trips to the zoo. I also want to shoot baseball
and football. I know that you need a 'fast' lens to do this but I
am limited on my budget. What I want to know is would the 100-400
IS L work for both of these? The 70-200 2.8 L would give me the
most flexablity I know but it would lack the IS since I can't
afford that version.

What would you all do in this situation. Is the 70-200 2.8 L with
Teleconverter close in sharpness to the 100-400?

Thanks.
--
Photo Noob

Click to expand...

I have the 70-200L 2.8 non-IS and use it for Soccer, Hockey, baseball, softball, basketball and night football. Its a great lens and sharp wide open and killer sharp at 4.0. I hand hold and have been satisfied with the results. I have thought about getting a 1.4 but you can crop in PS to get similar results so I havent spent the money. I feel the need for a longer lens and have been looking at the 100-400L but am waiting to see what canon comes out with next week if anything else. If money is an object you may want to look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I've heard its quite good. I have been thinking of the Sigma 100-300 4.0 with a 1.4TC for daytime sports or the 100-400L canon.
--
Scotty, I need more power! I'm givin it all she's got Jim!
http://www.pbase.com/daniel_jackson/root
Pbase supporter

I have the 70-200 4.0 and should have the 70-200 IS on Friday. The first lens is very sharp at 4.0, wonder if the IS version will be equally sharp at 2.8?

I don't agree that cropping is the same as using the 1.4x converter since one method is optical and the other is digital. If that were the case, why not use a wider angle and just crop to move closer to the subject? Resolution will be lost.

I already have the 1.4x and can't wait to try it on the IS lens. Seems very cost effective to reach 448mm equivalent in good lighting.

Daniel Jackson said:

PhotoNoob said:

I am trying to decide which lens to buy. I am mainly interested in
photographing my trips to the zoo. I also want to shoot baseball
and football. I know that you need a 'fast' lens to do this but I
am limited on my budget. What I want to know is would the 100-400
IS L work for both of these? The 70-200 2.8 L would give me the
most flexablity I know but it would lack the IS since I can't
afford that version.

What would you all do in this situation. Is the 70-200 2.8 L with
Teleconverter close in sharpness to the 100-400?

Thanks.
--
Photo Noob

Click to expand...

I have the 70-200L 2.8 non-IS and use it for Soccer, Hockey,
baseball, softball, basketball and night football. Its a great lens
and sharp wide open and killer sharp at 4.0. I hand hold and have
been satisfied with the results. I have thought about getting a 1.4
but you can crop in PS to get similar results so I havent spent the
money. I feel the need for a longer lens and have been looking at
the 100-400L but am waiting to see what canon comes out with next
week if anything else. If money is an object you may want to look
at the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I've heard its quite good. I have been
thinking of the Sigma 100-300 4.0 with a 1.4TC for daytime sports
or the 100-400L canon.
--
Scotty, I need more power! I'm givin it all she's got Jim!
http://www.pbase.com/daniel_jackson/root
Pbase supporter

Click to expand...

randy jk said:

I don't agree that cropping is the same as using the 1.4x converter
since one method is optical and the other is digital. If that were
the case, why not use a wider angle and just crop to move closer to
the subject? Resolution will be lost.

Click to expand...

Just repeating what others have said of the gain from 200 to 280mm on the 70-200L with the 1.4tc. The effect of doing a crop to the same size as the 1.4 and the lost image quality of shooting with the 1.4 is about equal, as some here have stated.
--
Scotty, I need more power! I'm givin it all she's got Jim!
http://www.pbase.com/daniel_jackson/root
Pbase supporter

Daniel,

I am surprised they are equal. I would have thought the 1.4x route have produced a better image.

Did you test this or is this speculation?

Thanks,
Darrell

Darrell McCombs said:

Daniel,

I am surprised they are equal. I would have thought the 1.4x route
have produced a better image.

Click to expand...

Optical zoom vs digital zoom, end of story.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
Still love the Spurs (the Mavs suck)
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip

what are you talking about digital zoom? a teleconverter is NOT a digital zoom.

drip said:

Darrell McCombs said:

Daniel,

I am surprised they are equal. I would have thought the 1.4x route
have produced a better image.

Click to expand...

Optical zoom vs digital zoom, end of story.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
Still love the Spurs (the Mavs suck)
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip

Click to expand...

--
I am not an English native speaker!
Please email me at [email protected] for questions
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

TC = optical zoom
uprezing = digital zoom

--
Brian
Dallas, TX
Still love the Spurs (the Mavs suck)
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip

I just got my Tamron 1.4x and did a test on a sign with text. without the TC I could not read the text, but with the TC I could easily read it. If I enlarged the version without the TC by 1.4 digitaly, I still could not read the text. result that I found is that with the TC you get more detail in.

randy jk said:

I don't agree that cropping is the same as using the 1.4x converter
since one method is optical and the other is digital. If that were
the case, why not use a wider angle and just crop to move closer to
the subject? Resolution will be lost.

I already have the 1.4x and can't wait to try it on the IS lens.
Seems very cost effective to reach 448mm equivalent in good
lighting.

Daniel Jackson said:

PhotoNoob said:

I am trying to decide which lens to buy. I am mainly interested in
photographing my trips to the zoo. I also want to shoot baseball
and football. I know that you need a 'fast' lens to do this but I
am limited on my budget. What I want to know is would the 100-400
IS L work for both of these? The 70-200 2.8 L would give me the
most flexablity I know but it would lack the IS since I can't
afford that version.

What would you all do in this situation. Is the 70-200 2.8 L with
Teleconverter close in sharpness to the 100-400?

Thanks.
--
Photo Noob

Click to expand...

I have the 70-200L 2.8 non-IS and use it for Soccer, Hockey,
baseball, softball, basketball and night football. Its a great lens
and sharp wide open and killer sharp at 4.0. I hand hold and have
been satisfied with the results. I have thought about getting a 1.4
but you can crop in PS to get similar results so I havent spent the
money. I feel the need for a longer lens and have been looking at
the 100-400L but am waiting to see what canon comes out with next
week if anything else. If money is an object you may want to look
at the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I've heard its quite good. I have been
thinking of the Sigma 100-300 4.0 with a 1.4TC for daytime sports
or the 100-400L canon.
--
Scotty, I need more power! I'm givin it all she's got Jim!
http://www.pbase.com/daniel_jackson/root
Pbase supporter

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
I am not an English native speaker!
Please email me at [email protected] for questions
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

Sounds pretty conclusive to me. And the more you enlarge digitally, the worse it gets.

Daniella said:

randy jk said:

I don't agree that cropping is the same as using the 1.4x converter
since one method is optical and the other is digital. If that were
the case, why not use a wider angle and just crop to move closer to
the subject? Resolution will be lost.

I already have the 1.4x and can't wait to try it on the IS lens.
Seems very cost effective to reach 448mm equivalent in good
lighting.

Daniel Jackson said:

PhotoNoob said:

I am trying to decide which lens to buy. I am mainly interested in
photographing my trips to the zoo. I also want to shoot baseball
and football. I know that you need a 'fast' lens to do this but I
am limited on my budget. What I want to know is would the 100-400
IS L work for both of these? The 70-200 2.8 L would give me the
most flexablity I know but it would lack the IS since I can't
afford that version.

What would you all do in this situation. Is the 70-200 2.8 L with
Teleconverter close in sharpness to the 100-400?

Thanks.
--
Photo Noob

Click to expand...

I have the 70-200L 2.8 non-IS and use it for Soccer, Hockey,
baseball, softball, basketball and night football. Its a great lens
and sharp wide open and killer sharp at 4.0. I hand hold and have
been satisfied with the results. I have thought about getting a 1.4
but you can crop in PS to get similar results so I havent spent the
money. I feel the need for a longer lens and have been looking at
the 100-400L but am waiting to see what canon comes out with next
week if anything else. If money is an object you may want to look
at the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I've heard its quite good. I have been
thinking of the Sigma 100-300 4.0 with a 1.4TC for daytime sports
or the 100-400L canon.
--
Scotty, I need more power! I'm givin it all she's got Jim!
http://www.pbase.com/daniel_jackson/root
Pbase supporter

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
I am not an English native speaker!
Please email me at [email protected] for questions
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

Click to expand...

like mine does... geez!

Dave R

randy jk said:

Daniella said:

randy jk said:

I don't agree that cropping is the same as using the 1.4x converter
since one method is optical and the other is digital. If that were
the case, why not use a wider angle and just crop to move closer to
the subject? Resolution will be lost.

I already have the 1.4x and can't wait to try it on the IS lens.
Seems very cost effective to reach 448mm equivalent in good
lighting.

Daniel Jackson said:

PhotoNoob said:

I am trying to decide which lens to buy. I am mainly interested in
photographing my trips to the zoo. I also want to shoot baseball
and football. I know that you need a 'fast' lens to do this but I
am limited on my budget. What I want to know is would the 100-400
IS L work for both of these? The 70-200 2.8 L would give me the
most flexablity I know but it would lack the IS since I can't
afford that version.

What would you all do in this situation. Is the 70-200 2.8 L with
Teleconverter close in sharpness to the 100-400?

Thanks.
--
Photo Noob

Click to expand...

I have the 70-200L 2.8 non-IS and use it for Soccer, Hockey,
baseball, softball, basketball and night football. Its a great lens
and sharp wide open and killer sharp at 4.0. I hand hold and have
been satisfied with the results. I have thought about getting a 1.4
but you can crop in PS to get similar results so I havent spent the
money. I feel the need for a longer lens and have been looking at
the 100-400L but am waiting to see what canon comes out with next
week if anything else. If money is an object you may want to look
at the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I've heard its quite good. I have been
thinking of the Sigma 100-300 4.0 with a 1.4TC for daytime sports
or the 100-400L canon.
--
Scotty, I need more power! I'm givin it all she's got Jim!
http://www.pbase.com/daniel_jackson/root
Pbase supporter

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
I am not an English native speaker!
Please email me at [email protected] for questions
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

How about the Sigma 120-300 f2.8? Several folks here rate it pretty high. I'm in pretty much the same boat as you and it is on my short list.

PhotoNoob said:

I am trying to decide which lens to buy. I am mainly interested in
photographing my trips to the zoo. I also want to shoot baseball
and football. I know that you need a 'fast' lens to do this but I
am limited on my budget. What I want to know is would the 100-400
IS L work for both of these? The 70-200 2.8 L would give me the
most flexablity I know but it would lack the IS since I can't
afford that version.

What would you all do in this situation. Is the 70-200 2.8 L with
Teleconverter close in sharpness to the 100-400?

Thanks.
--
Photo Noob

Click to expand...

1. Canon published the MTF charts of 1.4X TC and 2x TC with bunch of L lenses (zooms and primes). According to those charts, 70-200mm f2.8 is better than 70-200mm f2.8 IS when they have TCs.

2. My 100-400mm with 1.4X Tamron TC is about the same as 100-400mm W/O TC but upsizing. (TC is marginally better.)

Kai

PhotoNoob said:

I am trying to decide which lens to buy. I am mainly interested in
photographing my trips to the zoo. I also want to shoot baseball
and football. I know that you need a 'fast' lens to do this but I
am limited on my budget. What I want to know is would the 100-400
IS L work for both of these? The 70-200 2.8 L would give me the
most flexablity I know but it would lack the IS since I can't
afford that version.

What would you all do in this situation. Is the 70-200 2.8 L with
Teleconverter close in sharpness to the 100-400?

Thanks.
--
Photo Noob

Click to expand...

--
I am a newbie in photographing. Some of my not-so-great shots are here:
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui