[Canon] Beyond 200mm - 100-400mm L II?

L

LancsMak

Messages
106
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, my typical setup at present is an R6 Mk2 coupled with an EF 70-200 f2.8 Mk2 L which I use primarily for flyball competitions both indoor and outdoor. There are times however when I need something with a bit more reach, and I'm debating what that should be...

The three main options I have come up with from reading around are:

- TC 1.4/2x
- RF 100-500 L
- EF 100-400 f4.5 Mk2 L

Now the TC is the cheapest and lightest approach but whilst there are arguments both ways that the image quality image is tiny/tolerable, what I can't stomach is the slowed AF, that would be a killer for me. So I'm ruling that out.

The RF would be the pick of the bunch if it wasn't for the price tag - even second hand I'm looking at the best part of £2k

The EF whilst older is built like a tank and seems to get a lot of love in the Mk2 form, and that's what I'm leaning towards (£900-£1.2k depending on condition it seems).

What are the views on here on my picks/logic above? C&C welcome!

Cheers.
 
TC - just no, particularly with that lens. It has nothing beyond 6K resolution. Nothing.

100-500 - if you have the cash
100-400 II - should be OK

or 400mm f/5.6L if you just need 400mm sometimes. It is crazy sharp and you have IBIS covering for the lack of IS.

or obviously 100-300 f/2.8L :) You know you want to.
 
haha the 300 would be nice but not enough of a gain over the 200 to justify another lens for me really.

My worry with the prime is that I can't be sure of being able to control my distance to the subject, so zoom is crucial for me really. Looks like that brings your list to the same two I was debating over! And I suspect the bank will dictate which one is the viable option....

Thank you :).
 
Biggest bang for your buck is the 100-400 mkii. I recently got one and it's a staggering lens. Works seamlessy adapted on my R7 and is beautiful on my 5Div. The resolution on both cameras is excellent, it must be resolving every single pixel.

They are out there cheap as chips used now but be careful, some have been hammered.

Edit:- to add, I also have a Sigma 150-600C, also an excellent lens and I've had great results with that too. I don't think though it gets every ounce out of the sensor, like the Canon seems to.
 
Last edited:
OH sold her 100-400 EF2 to go for the RF100-500. Regretted it. Now she has a 300/2.8.

Anything slower than f5.6 is a no no in my view, especially indoors.
 
I tend to agree, but where are you shooting at 500mm indoors?
 
100-400mk2 is good when there is enough light. Otherwise EF 200-400 f4 or 300 2.8 if budget allows.
 
I had to Google flyball, but it isn't a common situation. I still agree with fast lenses being needed for indoor sports though, It is bad enough photographing mountain bikers in the woods on an overcast day.
 
I agree, 5.6 I'd need a very well lit venue for, thankfully the larger ones usually are. Many I'm down at f3.2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top