Do you own any of the following Canon gear? Opinions & Comparisons required please

jay_rowe

jay_rowe

Messages
47
Edit My Images
Yes
100-400mm f4.5-5.6L
70-200mm F2.8L
Canon 2x Converter


The reason I ask is this, I am considering my next purchase to be either:

The 100-400mm
Or
Combined purchase of the 70-200mm & the 2x Converter.

I have had the pleasure of borrowing a 70-200mm which I have fallen in love with but am undecided which road to take but am probably leaning towards the latter option at the moment.

I am aware that combining the 70-200mm and the 2x extended will result in the a resulting approximate f4.5-5.6 anyway as with the 100-400mm but obviously I will also have a 70-200 f2.8 so as I see it 2 lenses instead of one.

What is your opinion?

Also does anyone know of 3rd party lenses that can compete with the 100-400 or combo 70-200 + 2x Extender?

(I don't yet own 3rd party lenses so am a little weary.)


Thank You
 
Last edited:
Hi Jay

I prefer the images from the 100-400 over the 70-200 F2.8 MK2 + 2.0X MK3 converter.

If you need F2.8 in a 70-200 and a cheaper 140-400 for ocassional use then that might be the way to go.If you will be shooting in the 200-400 range a lot I would go for the 100-400.
A lot also depends on which 70-200 you get and which 2.0X tcon you use.

Gary
 
Possible contender is the Sigma 100-300 f/2.8 with either 1.4x or 2x converter.

Has good reviews, good IS etc. Longer on the short end, but would make a great long-long lens with the converter attached.

Cheaper than Canon too :)
 
Durbs said:
Possible contender is the Sigma 100-300 f/2.8 with either 1.4x or 2x converter.

Has good reviews, good IS etc. Longer on the short end, but would make a great long-long lens with the converter attached.

Cheaper than Canon too :)
Click to expand...

Am I right in thinking you mean the sigma 120-300 f2.8?

If so for guide prices i checked amazon and they come in at:

120-300 f2.8 is £1700

70-200 f2.8L mark 1 is £963

and the mark 2 is £1871 on amazon

Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 is £1326

I think that the 120-300 & the 70-200 mark 2 are out of my price range (sadly)

As it stands I could just manage the 70-200 f2.8 m1 & maybe the 2x at a later date :-(

Thanks for your input though.

Any other suggestions?
 
vulcan2912 said:
There's someone selling an older Sigma 120-300 F2.8 in the classifieds section.Might be worth taking a look if you don't mind going 2nd hand.There's also a 100-400 in there at the minute.

There is also the Sigma 100-300 F4 lens that someone else mentioned.That is a lot cheaper than a new 120-300 F2.8.

Gary
Click to expand...

That sounds good but I dont have access to the classifieds yet lol newbie! But could consider 2nd hand. Thank you Gary
 
jay_rowe said:
Thanks but there's not much difference in price I'm better of with first hand. Cheers though.
Click to expand...

Ok no worrys. Was just trying to show you different options :)
 
I use a 70-200 f2.8 canon and bought a canon 1.4 extender for it. I used it about 3 times but the difference in image quality was very noticable and I sold it on. I would go 100-400
 
Funnily enough I have had the 70-200 with a converter and the 100-400.

The range of the 100-400 is really really useful, covers a massive range and is quite sharp, however I don't like the push pull zooming. It sucks in more dust than a dyson and is harder to maintain than Katie Price.

I got the 70-200 F/2.8 and used it with a sigma 2x converter and was extremely impressed with both the range and sharpness. That said, I no longer own the 100-400 or the converter and I love the 70-200 F/2.8 for how sharp it is.

Have a look at the 70-300L, I used that in bristol zoo with a 650D for a whole day and loved it, the IS on it is actually fantastic!
 
I have The 70-200 f2.8 IS, two 100-400's, a 2x convertor, 1.4 convertor.

I've never found the 100-400 to be a dust pump and I've used it in all conditions. I have no issues with mine. I've also considered using the 2x with the 70-200, which I've done when travelling light. However, I prefer the versatility of the 100-400 and think its slightly sharper than the combined option. I've not repeated the exercise with the 5d mk3 yet.
 
Obviously a lot depends on what your shooting, but for what it's worth, i have both and the 100/400 is what spends most of it's time on my camera.

Cheers

John
 
farrance said:
I don't like the push pull zooming. It sucks in more dust than a dyson and is harder to maintain than Katie Price.
Click to expand...

Push-pull zooming makes absolutely zero difference to how much dust is sucked in. Even half a nanosecond's thought should be enough to realise that any lens that moves the front element when zooming will have to suck air in and out. The method to move that front element is totally irrelevant.
 
hollis_f said:
Push-pull zooming makes absolutely zero difference to how much dust is sucked in. Even half a nanosecond's thought should be enough to realise that any lens that moves the front element when zooming will have to suck air in and out. The method to move that front element is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Could of been just mine then, but it has gained the reputation of being the dust pump...
 
Thanks everyone - may have got a bargain price 70-200 f2.8 at £600 mint condition
 
hollis_f said:
Push-pull zooming makes absolutely zero difference to how much dust is sucked in. Even half a nanosecond's thought should be enough to realise that any lens that moves the front element when zooming will have to suck air in and out. The method to move that front element is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Some lenses are internal zoom and don't suck any dust (just shift it around within the lens). For example 70-200mm.

100-400 is so bad because it moves so far in and out, and the dust goes to the sensor (not out through the side). 24-70mm mk1 is also quite dusty.
 
I've got a 70-200 f2.8L MkII and when used with my MkIII 2x converter on my 5D3 I get a better IQ shot than I did with a 100-400 L on a 5D2. The 70-200 MkI suffers greatly from image degradation compared to the MkII and is not as good as the 100-400.

I had no dust problems with my 100-400 and used it a lot during the time I had mine, although that was only around 7-8 months from new. I got a Sigma 150-500 OS and after lots of testing I decided to keep the Sigma but I would have another 100-400 without having to think about it.
 
daugirdas said:
A bad copy then. By f/5.6 they have to be super good
Click to expand...

This was the non-OS DG model and the one I owned and another one that I borrowed from my local shop with a view to buying were both soft and lacking in contrast. Even when stopped down they struggled. I have tried the newer OS version breifly and it seems to be a good deal better.
 
Managed to get the 70-200mm non is f2.8 for £600 - Mint condition. Although no IS. I will use on mono or tripod most of the time anyway. Sure it will hold the value as long as I look after it and may even make a few £ if I do upgrade to the 100-400mm. Thanks for your input folks
 
I have used a 100-400 for over 6 years without any dust problems at airshows and out in the field shooting wildlife. A simple way to solve any dust concerns is spend £15/25 on a waterproof lens cover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top