L lens ?

halfshift

halfshift

Messages
119
Name
jim
Edit My Images
Yes
hi guys, i am looking for a new lens and think its about time i got the L series, I have the canon 450d, I am stuck between the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and the canon 70-200 2.8 is (pos 1.4 or 2x con) would these both work on my 450 body? and what one would be best? thanks guys
 
It depends what you want to shoot.
If you are doing wildlife I would think the 100-400mm would be the way to go unless you need f/2.8 for low light situations.
I tried out a 70-200 2.8 IS yesterday and the IQ totally blew me away.
I like the idea of a longer focal length for wildlife but the 70-200 2.8 was very fast and the speed at which it gained the focus lock really impressed me.
 
halfshift said:
hi guys, i am looking for a new lens and think its about time i got the L series, I have the canon 450d, I am stuck between the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and the canon 70-200 2.8 is (pos 1.4 or 2x con) would these both work on my 450 body? and what one would be best? thanks guys
Click to expand...

Both lenses will work on your body. As to which one, depends what you want to photography. Personally, I don't think the 70-200mm f2.8 and TC's work too well together, the 1.4x TC ok, but forget about the 2x TC on that lens. You understand that you lose 1 f-stop of light with the 1.4x TC and 2 f-stops of light with the 2x TC, making the 70-200mm a 98-280mm f4 or 140-400mm f5.6 respectively, but you'll be hit hard on autofocus speed and definitely image quality with the 2x TC, so not a good combo.

The 100-400mm can be a little soft at the 400mm end.

Again it would depend what you want to photograph, your budget and don't dismiss other lenses.
 
thanks guys, i am sure ther is a thread on about 70-200+2x tc that said it was a great combo,do you think this combo would give on par results with the 100-400?
 
If you intend to use the lens mostly within the 200-400mm range get the 100-400mm. It will provide better results than a 70-200 with TC's. In my opinion TC's work much better with primes.
 
halfshift said:
thanks guys, i am sure ther is a thread on about 70-200+2x tc that said it was a great combo,do you think this combo would give on par results with the 100-400?
Click to expand...

The 100-400mm would be miles better, yes the 70-200mm + 2x TC will get you shots, but performance wise for motorsport or even wildlife, NOPE, you lose autofocus lock, and you can forget it, lens will hunt and you'll have missed the shot and have to wait until next time around, performance is seriously curtailed with a 2 TC. The TC's are primarily intended to be used on the faster primes lenses not zooms.

On its own the 70-200mm a great lens, have taken some great close up motorsport shots with it, but if I want longer, I use my 300mm primes
 
I think you should try both those lenses, and also the 70-200 f/4, and maybe 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS.

Both the 10-400L and 70-200 f/2.8 are substantial lumps of glass, and not the kind of lenses that everybody want to cart about on a regular basis.

I have both 100-400L and 70-200L f/4 IS for this reason. Another good combo might be 100-400L and 70-300 (very good lens) and wouldn't push the budget too far.

Not an easy choice. Depends on what you want to do and how you like to do it.
 
70-200 is a great all round lens it will revolutionise your life

but 400mm is a lot better for wildlife, it's a lens I'd probably never buy as my priorities lie elsewhere completely
 
as said it all depends on what type of photography you are wanting it for.

I have the 100-400L and its great for motorsport events where you need the extra reach, and it was spot on at Sunderland Airshow. I would have got nothing with a 70-200.

However the speed of the autofocus and image quality of the 70-200 makes it awesome for motorsport as well

I see more 70-200s at events than any other of the L range
 
If you intend to shoot primarily birds quite a few people go for the 400mm f5.6 instead, it's a bit lighter and meant to be great for birds in flight. I've never seen a bad word said against it.

EDIT - missed the sports bit, not sure many people use it for that.
 
losing versatility but gaining image quality, i've seen loads of shots from the 300/4 with a 1.4x tc (420mm f/5.6) that spanked the iq of a 100-400 at 400

another option to consider! i'd look at your body, with slower lenses like the 100-400 you'll need to up the iso a fair bit in anything but great light to get a reliably useable shutter speed. how well does the 450d handle noise at iso 400/800?
 
c_robinson said:
losing versatility but gaining image quality, i've seen loads of shots from the 300/4 with a 1.4x tc (420mm f/5.6) that spanked the iq of a 100-400 at 400

another option to consider! i'd look at your body, with slower lenses like the 100-400 you'll need to up the iso a fair bit in anything but great light to get a reliably useable shutter speed. how well does the 450d handle noise at iso 400/800?
Click to expand...

Not sure about that. 100-400L can hold its own against that combo pretty well http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

Also the 400L 5.6 doesn't have IS and cannot focus very close.

How is the 100-400L any worse than those primes "in anything but great light"? All f/5.6 at 400mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top