Canon Lens - getting more reach

J

johngccfc

Messages
49
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Canon 550D and Canon 70-200 IS mk2 and want to get a few thoughts on extra reach.

Cheapest would be to get either a 1.4x or 2x TC (giving me either 280 or 400).

Next cheapest would be a Sigma 150-500.

Getting a TC (or not) would also extend a Canon 300 F4 prime or the Canon 400 F5.6 (though I think I prefer the IS of the 300).

I've half ruled out the Sigma (not everyone seems to get great IQ - especially at longer lengths) and can see a logic in getting a TC (cheapest option first off with some future proofing if I get a Canon prime to extend).

Am I looking at this sensibly or missing a huge point?

p.s. I guess I'm asking about the logic of a TC as an upgrade path to getting then extending a prime. I have a fear that a Sigma may have its limits.
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind that a tele converter cannot be used with all lenses and still keep the autofocus functionality. As a guide a lens with f/4 or better at full zoom can take a 1.4 while a f/2.8 can take a 1.4 or 2.0 converter.
 
thats worth knowing, thanks.

I guess the compatibility of the 1.4x may end up being a factor
 
Well the 70/200 f2.8 reputedly takes a 2*tc very well and retains auto focus on your 550D.
The Siggy is also supposed to be good,a 1.4 TC will work OK on the 300f ( used to have one and it was very good not a lot of IQ loss and focus speed),a 2*TC will not AF on this with your camera, although it might with the pins taped but it will hunt
The 400 f5.6 with a1.4TC will not AF on your camera,again pin taping might work but it will be slow and will hunt.
Try to beg borrow or steal a couple of TC's and try on your 70/200.
You could try hiring http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/canon-extenders-11-c.asp not expensive and will answer your question
 
troutfisher said:
Try to beg borrow or steal a couple of TC's and try on your 70/200.You could try hiring http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/canon-extenders-11-c.asp not expensive and will answer your question
Click to expand...

:plusone: hiring some lenses is a good cheap option and a hire for a couple of days ain't that expensive.

As for a longer zoom, what primarily would you be using it to photograph as that will determine the recommendations and what's you budget?
 
I guess hiring would be a good way of having a taste, i hadn't thought of that.

As for what would I primarily be photographing, I actually am quite interested in landscapes but only have a EFS 17-85 lens for that. I guess I'm waiting to get a FF before I can get better lenses for that.

I actually pretty new to the camera game and perhaps like most people I always wish I was getting a bit closer to stuff. I took my 70-200 out for its first outing the other week but ending up taking too much a f2.8 and the DOF was too shallow and need to learn about better aperture settings but I enjoyed the ability to get closer to subjects. Whilst I was out in the woods I was wishing I was getting closer to the birds and wildlife. I spent the last hour by the sea and got one or two nice close ups of seagulls (?) as they flew past.

The camera encourages me to go out and do stuff that I wouldn't necesarily do and I think it would be great to do some sports and perhaps motor shots. I like the 'slice of time' that the camera captures, giving us a momentary view of life that we'd never normally see.

I was very aware with my 17-85 that I only had a limited circle of reach and being able to go to 200 really opened things up, for example, the bird was no longer a meaningless barely visible dot in the picture, not that it is too much of a frame filler with 200. Last year in Swansea bay the red arrows were there and most of my pictures were pitiful due to lack of reach but one time they flew right over my head and I got a reasonable close up. I think it was this single incident that made me want a longer zoom.

As far as budget is concerned, officially I don't have much but I managed to get the 70-200 recently. If I think about say a Sigma 150-500 or a 1.4xTC followed later by a 300 f4, both of these options would be possible. My thinking (from hours of trawling through mainly this forum) is, that the Sigma is good but the Canon 300 F4 is great. There was a quote on Topw Gear a while back when it was said that people who drive a Porsche Boxster will tell you about what they like about it but really the only reason they have one is because they can't afford the 911. With this in mind, I'd hate to spend £700 on a Simga only to wish I'd got the Canon (even though it doesn't have zoom).

There are a few great shots I've seen of planes, cars and birds on this forum that make me think the Canon 300 F4 has a truly great IQ even when used with the 1.4x and my current thinking is that this feels like the direction I'm drawn towards.

Part of my logic for this route is that is has the smallest up front cost which takes me to 280mm and then the Canon would then exceed that with a cracking IQ and then be able to go to 420mm with the TC which seems a logical progression.
 
I'm stuck between deciding on the 300mm F4 +1.4x TC or the 400mm F5.6.

The 400mm is sharper than the 300mm combo, or the 150-500 siggy, but the 300mm is still as sharp or sharper than the siggy and has IS too which for my shakey hands is a good thing.
 
One of the best reasons to get a 70-200L 2.8 Mk2 is becuase it takes a 2x extender so well. Since you already have this lens, it should only take you another five seconds to decide this is by far the most sensible route.

Time's up!
 
If your worried about the 150-500 iq why don't you go for its big brother the 50-500 some on here say its way sharper!
I have the 150-500 and am happy with it couldn't afford the the 50-500!!
 
I have owned (and sold) a 2x converter. was really disappointed with the results to be honest. and as for IS lens i (and its my opinion so don't shoot me) i think the extra cost is no where near worth what you get. If your taking loads of low light shoots then it could be worth it. Everyone seams to go for the fastest lens they can. When i'm shooting motorsport i use my 70-200 f4L (none is). I never ever seam to have it wide open at F4 so why the extra expense of a 2.8? Still think its the best lens for the money you can buy. Seen them as cheap as £475 brand new. I also have a Paragon 200mm prime f3.5 (m42 mount with canon converter) with a vivitar x2 coverter which does give acceptable results total cost 2nd hand was £35.. now thats a bargain. Rob
 
Have you considered the Canon 100-400L? They can be picked up pre-owned on MPB Photographic for less than £900.

Use mine for Rugby & Cricket and whilst not the fastest piece of glass available, it gives (IMO) great results and is a very flexible piece of kit for the money.
 
Russ77 said:
Have you considered the Canon 100-400L? They can be picked up pre-owned on MPB Photographic for less than £900.

Use mine for Rugby & Cricket and whilst not the fastest piece of glass available, it gives (IMO) great results and is a very flexible piece of kit for the money.
Click to expand...

:plusone: for the 100-400mm, I bought one a couple of weeks ago and am still so much in love. It does only have 2-stop IS which isn't as good as your 70-200.
If I was you I would rent a 2x T.C and see if its any good, IIRC they are about £30 for a week from Lenses For Hire. That would give you 400mm at f5.6 with your current lens.
 
300mm f4 great lens, was my main sport / aviation lens until I upgraded last year to the bigger brother. The f4 works very well with the canon 1.4x TC, but you do need the light to get the best from that combo.

300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3850copy1.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_4393copy2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_2159_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3362_edited-2.jpg


The 300mm f2.8 even better, but I assume out of your price range by a few $$$$

300mm F2.8 (MKI) + 1.4x and 2x TC (MKII) stacked
IMG_6377_copy_1.jpg


Canon 300mm f2.8 + 2x TC (MKII)

IMG_5729copy1.jpg


F2.8 a great lens, works well with the 1.4x and 2x TC but to get the best you need the light conditions. The bird Fraternity really like the 400mm f5.6 and its a fast focusing sharp lens, but I've seen it struggle, especially with aircraft in gloomy light, the f4 does make a difference over the f5.6 with the f2.8 streets ahead, but all 3 very good lenses.

I've been impressed with the images from the sigma 50-500 / 150-500, however, the jury's still out on action shots that require high shutter speeds, unless the lights perfect, no been impressed with the motorsport or aviation shots, a tad soft, but as a wildlife lens, very good value for the money. Sigma 50-500mm is suppose to be the slightly better (sharper) lens.

Peter
 
Last edited:
I have the 70-200 mkII that you ahve and recently started to use the 1.4 giving me 280mm its briliant.. I photogrpahed a kids football match on tuesday.. did some at f5.6 just in case and some at f4 .. the f4 are perfect ..well pleased..

I wouldnt mind seeing what the x2 does on this lens..
 
Thanks for your responses and advice.

I'm not able to rent a TC for the next six weeks due to being away with work and, at the risk of sounding a bit lame, I'm not really skilled enough to be able to perform adequate testing as I'm pretty new to photography and still continually make numerous schoolboy errors.

After my initial lens purchase of an EFS 17-85 to replace my kit lens, all my purchasing decisions have been made on the back of hours and hours of reading the experiences and opinions of (hopefully) seasoned hobbiests and pros.

To answer one or two comments directly, I'm not sure if i'd feel that happy with a 100-400 as, firstly, it would render it or the 70-200 semi redundant and secondly I'm under the impression that the 70-200 f2.8 is a work of art and thats not the impression I get of the 100-400, and as its a lot cheaper, logic says that it can't be that good in comparison.

Regarding the TC, I, like many surely many others crave the extra reach of the 2x but many seem to have reservations of it whereas I've rarely read about the 1.4x having the same issues. 49Clicks, I like your thinking regarding the 1.4x with a monopod.

pete.rush, yes the 300 f2.8 is very many bridges too far. I'm not sure if I'd ever get that serious (or rich). btw your photos are stunning, I'd be thrilled silly to be able to get some pictures like these. On stacking, I saw a site last night where the guy had stacked two x 2x TCs (search for shoot out canon 70-200), he shows all permutations of images on various ranges, distances and image/pixel types.

kipax, so pleased you're having joy and success with the 1.4x, it gives me hope. Hurry up and try the 2x, I'm curious to know what you think. :D
 
I looked at a 70-200 with 2x before buying a 100-400L

I found it unbalanced to use as it became very front heavy and I wasn't particularly impressed with the results either....

I found the 100-400 easier to use and delivers sharp results even wide open at 400mm

tbh compared to a 17-85 the quality of any of the L lenses will blow you away....

Martin
 
so mipevo6, if you had got the 70-200 and were looking to extend reach, which way do you think you would be looking today?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top