Long lens for Canon , but how ? (updated with some results)

Another vote for the 400mm f5.6L, if you have already got the 70-200mm focal length covered (and a bit more with the TC) the prime lens will sort out the top end, with much better image quality.
 
I think it's risky to suggest that taping the pins on an extender/telecon is a reliable option. You need to try it first. My experience is the same as CT's, and there's another current thread which confirms that newer Canons, including the 7D, don't take to it very well. You can fool the camera, but that doesn't change the physical diameter of the aperture which the AF system sees, which is why Canon has elected to disable AF over f/5.6. For the same reason, AF is enhanced at f/2.8 and lower as the light cone hitting the AF sensors is wider.

I think you can push it to f/6.3, which is what many third-party zooms get away with at the long end, but f/5.6 with a 1.4x extender is f/8.

Edit: I also like the push-pull zoom of the 100-400L, it's logical and intuitive, and it's locking feature is nice :thumbs: A lot of zooms used to be like this, and it takes two seconds to get used to it. I think it's part of why the lens works so well optically, as it wouldn't really be possible to move all that heavy glass such a long way with a twist-ring.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
I think it's risky to suggest that taping the pins on an extender/telecon is a reliable option.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. All this talk of how AF 'works' with taped, or non-reporting, TCs is just building people up for a big disappointment when they find out that 'works' actually means 'tries to do something but gives up unless you're shooting something high-contrast in full sunlight'.

Then there are the people who say that a 2x TC works really well with manual focus - and they include a decent image to prove it. But, over time, you see that same image posted again, and again and again. And you wonder if 'works really well' actually means 'worked once'.
 
Wow quite a set of responses, thanks very much for the input.

Let me restate what I was looking at just to keep everybody clear :-)

Requirement was for Deer, water birds (Herons, Ducks, swans) and maybe at some point some motorsports.

I currently have a 70-200 F4 IS which I pair with a 1.4x which gives me an effective FOV of 280MM at F5.6 This is a little on the short side as I would really like to be able to fill the frame hence wanting something longer. The problem with where I normally shoot is that I can get very close as well so a prime would always be swapping on and off as well as being heavy and requiring I take 2 lenses (70-200 and prime) hence considering a zoom.

I guess the standard Canon offers would be :-

  • 70-300 L IS USM (F5.6)
  • 100-400 L IS USM (F5.6)
  • 400 F5.6 prime
  • Sigma zoom

But looking at each of these options a little more deeply...

  • The 70-300 is a nice range but the 300 is only a tiny bit longer than the 280 which I have already decided is not long enough.
  • The 100-400 is pretty old and has the pump style zoom which is different. This would then give me decent length.
  • The 400 prime looks great IQ but loses a lot of flexibility....
  • I have no experience of Sigma lenses nor of their support in things like LR for correcting lens aberrations, hence feeling a little uncomfortable going this way

However, Not being 100% convinced by the above (100-400 is probably the best option) I started thinking about alternatives.


The 70-200 F2.8 MkII is a cracking lens :-) it would give me access to a fast high quality lens for every day use. The thought being I could then slip on a 2x to be able to give me an effective FOV of 400 @ F5.6 so maintaining AF, only needing to carry 1 lens and 1 converter instead of 2 big heavy lenses and meeting the same need as the 100-400.

The only caveat of course being that this would only work if the IQ was equivalent... hence asking the question and starting this thread :-)

I guess my criteria for selecting the solution are:-

  1. Flexibility
  2. IQ
  3. Cost

I have the budget for the 70-200 F2.8 + 2x so not the primary issue.

Any more thoughts?
 
I have the 70-200 2.8L. It arrived in the post witht he 2XTC on the same day. I unpacked both and took this shot with the lens and the converter fitted...

4336_17045508084649401431839.jpg


It's actually pretty poor quality, even at this small size and certainly wouldn't stand any degree of enlargement. It's not much of a crop either.The 2X TC behind a zoom - even one as good as the 70-200 2.8L will disappoint you very quickly. I rarely use it because it's just too short for birds and I do have better options, but it's easily my least used lens. I really ought to get rid of it, but I hang onto it becuse it's just too good and it will be great when I get around to something else other than bird photography, if I ever stop talking about it and actually manage it.


This shot on the other hand is taken with the 100-400L and it's a pretty substantial crop - certainly over 50%

2930583313_91a85092cd_o.jpg


If you're going to use converters -put them behind a prime - there'll still be a loss of IQ but it will be a lot less noticable.
 
CT said:
I have the 70-200 2.8L. It arrived in the post witht he 2XTC on the same day. I unpacked both and took this shot with the lens and the converter fitted...

4336_17045508084649401431839.jpg


It's actually pretty poor quality, even at this small size and certainly wouldn't stand any degree of enlargement. It's not much of a crop either.The 2X TC behind a zoom - even one as good as the 70-200 2.8L will disappoint you very quickly. I rarely use it because it's just too short for birds and I do have better options, but it's easily my least used lens. I really ought to get rid of it, but I hang onto it becuse it's just too good and it will be great when I get around to something else other than bird photography, if I ever stop talking about it and actually manage it.


This shot on the other hand is taken with the 100-400L and it's a pretty substantial crop - certainly over 50%

2930583313_91a85092cd_o.jpg


If you're going to use converters -put them behind a prime - there'll still be a loss of IQ but it will be a lot less noticable.
Click to expand...


But is it the MkII 70-200? This improves the IQ with converters considerably over the MK1
 
hollis_f said:
I agree 100%. All this talk of how AF 'works' with taped, or non-reporting, TCs is just building people up for a big disappointment when they find out that 'works' actually means 'tries to do something but gives up unless you're shooting something high-contrast in full sunlight'.

Then there are the people who say that a 2x TC works really well with manual focus - and they include a decent image to prove it. But, over time, you see that same image posted again, and again and again. And you wonder if 'works really well' actually means 'worked once'.
Click to expand...

Tried the taping pins. I either got hunting, really slow af of sorts or just not working so I gave up.
Manual focus with a 2x TC works but it's a really fine adjustment. I've used it for kingfishers and the moon - works ok (the moon moves really fast at 800mm +1.6 crop + 10x zoom liveview).
Just not areas I usually shoot in so haven't posted more.
 
Martin - if you are going for the Sigma please note the price is about to go up from about £750 to about £840.
 
mipevo6 said:
<snip>

I guess my criteria for selecting the solution are:-

  1. Flexibility
  2. IQ
  3. Cost

I have the budget for the 70-200 F2.8 + 2x so not the primary issue.

Any more thoughts?
Click to expand...

Those options often come up in these dabates, and the conclusion is usually the same.

Flexibilty - 100-400L has 4x zoom range
IQ - of the zooms, 100-400L is best
Cost - 100-400L is pretty reasonable, substanbtially less than the 70-200L option plus 2x. You can get a used minter for £900 (that's what I sold mine for, foolishly :'( ) and they hold their value better than anything

I don't see how you can go wrong with the 100-400L. If you buy used and don't like it, you could sell it on in five minutes on here and not lose a penny.
 
squishy said:
But is it the MkII 70-200? This improves the IQ with converters considerably over the MK1
Click to expand...
Mines about 3 years old I suppose, so it's a MK1 with a MK11 converter.

No doubt the quality has improved with the Mk11 version, but it would have to be brilliant to get past the basic issue that a zoom, however good, is already compromised compared to a prime without putting any converter behind it.
 
Cedric, you should try the 70-200L 2.8 MkII ;) It's in a different league to the MkI.

With a 2x telecon, I believe the 100-400L still beats it, but it's damn close!
 
go for the 70-200 mk 2 with converter nothing touches the mk2 it's amazing:D
 
You already have the flexability with your 70-200 and tcon.I would personally go for the 400 5.6L.For the price of the 70-200 Mk2 you could virtually pick up a 400 F5.6 and a 7D.2 cams,2 different lenses.You could also dump a 1.4 tcon on the F5.6 if you wanted a bit more length.

Never buy a lens with the intention of using a tcon on it.If you do you are buying the wrong lens.

Cheers
Gary
 
Hi Martin, I had the same dilemma and I went for the 70-200 f2.8 mk ii with the 2x mk ii tc. There are pros and cons as you already know, if you want to PM me we could arrange a get together and you're welcome to try it out to.
 
n1kcy said:
Hi Martin, I had the same dilemma and I went for the 70-200 f2.8 mk ii with the 2x mk ii tc. There are pros and cons as you already know, if you want to PM me we could arrange a get together and you're welcome to try it out to.
Click to expand...

And if it's of any use I have the siggy 150-500 if you want to try that.
 
vulcan2912 said:
Never buy a lens with the intention of using a tcon on it.If you do you are buying the wrong lens.
Click to expand...
Damn! I bought my 300 f2.8 knowing that I would be using it a lot with a TC. And it turns out that over three quarters of my shots are with the 1.4x TC and 15% with the 2x. Now it turns out that I bought the wrong lens.

Perhaps you could tell me which is the correct lens for somebody wanting over 400mm, handholdable, with IS, the option of 600mm with AF, and with IQ as good as what I get?
 
HoppyUK said:
Cedric, you should try the 70-200L 2.8 MkII ;) It's in a different league to the MkI.

With a 2x telecon, I believe the 100-400L still beats it, but it's damn close!
Click to expand...

Oh I don't doubt they've improved on an already great lens Richard (I hope so at that price anyway) but it's just not a focal length I use that much so I wont be investing. Even the 300mm 2.8L gets used with converters most of the time, and the 500mm is used with the 1.4X TC quite a lot.
 
hollis_f said:
Perhaps you could tell me which is the correct lens for somebody wanting over 400mm, handholdable, with IS, the option of 600mm with AF, and with IQ as good as what I get?
Click to expand...
400mm f/4 DO IS? Smaller, lighter, and about as sharp as the 300/2.8 with a 1.4x TC. (But considerably more expensive.)
 
Hey folks,

I wanted to give an update to this thread.

N1kcy kindly offered to let me try her 70-200 MKii with a 2 x converter. We went to Bushy park this afternoon and tried it out in very grey and dark conditions...

(Thank you very much N1kcy for letting me use your lens, I hope your shots with my Macro come out nicely)

First, I am not used to using long lenses so this is new to me

Second, it was a very grey day with difficult light.

Third, the combination noted above is very front heavy and not easy to manage

so...

Here are a couple of examples I pumped through Lightroom very quickly...

You make up your minds, but I am now thinking about the 100-400 or the 400 F5.6...







This one was just shot with the 70-200 on its own..


Anybody know what this is?
 
Last shot is a first winter black headed gull (winter plumage, the black hood is in spring). They lose the mottling on the wings after the first year.

Any 100% crops? Those shots look sharp, but it's impossible to judge at web size. One seems to have a touch of camera shake, viewing the larger version on flickr.
The 100-400 would be slightly sharper, but with less effective IS. The 400mm prime would be even sharper, but lacking IS all together.

The 400mm prime would also focus faster (the 100-400 probably focusses faster too). The 400 prime would be less front heavy, not sure about the 100-400 because that is also a fairly front heavy lens.
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
Last shot is a first winter black headed gull (winter plumage, the black hood is in spring). They lose the mottling on the wings after the first year.

Any 100% crops? Those shots look sharp, but it's impossible to judge at web size. One seems to have a touch of camera shake, viewing the larger version on flickr.
The 100-400 would be slightly sharper, but with less effective IS. The 400mm prime would be even sharper, but lacking IS all together.

The 400mm prime would also focus faster (the 100-400 probably focusses faster too). The 400 prime would be less front heavy, not sure about the 100-400 because that is also a fairly front heavy lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments..

I didn't post 100% crops as I wasn't happy with the sharpness anyway.. not as sharp as my 70-200 F4 IS.

I did wonder what a 300MM F4 IS might be like? I already have a1.4x, that would give me 420 5.6 with IS.

Anybody care to comment?
 
The 300 x1.4 is apparently very similar sharpness to the 100-400.

If you already have the 1.4, that's a nice cheaper option. And the 300 on it's own is very sharp.
 
squishy said:
The 300 x1.4 is apparently very similar sharpness to the 100-400.

If you already have the 1.4, that's a nice cheaper option. And the 300 on it's own is very sharp.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I may well consider this solution...

Oh and thanks for identifying the bird for me :thumbs:
 
squishy said:
The 300 x1.4 is apparently very similar sharpness to the 100-400.

If you already have the 1.4, that's a nice cheaper option. And the 300 on it's own is very sharp.
Click to expand...

This may seem weird, but is there any point in retaining both? I have a 100-400 which I will use a wildlife walkabout in the sense that it will give me flexibility (zoos etc.)

I also have a 300mm F4L non-IS and a Canon 1.4II TC. I was thinking selling the 300 but today I'm thinking of using this combo on a tripod for birds.

Would this have any advantage over the 100-400?
 
Does anybody have any comparison shots of a 400 F5.6 or a 300 F4 IS with 1.4 TC ? any comments of how these stack up against a 100-400 ?

Part of me says go for the simple option of the 100-400....
 
mipevo6 said:
Does anybody have any comparison shots of a 400 F5.6 or a 300 F4 IS with 1.4 TC ? any comments of how these stack up against a 100-400 ?
Click to expand...

Out of these two it should be a simple choice, you said earlier in the thread that the downside of the 400 f5.6 was the lack of flexibility, so why consider a prime 300? Especially if you a) you want a longer length? and b) you are intending to use it with a converter?

Btw I checked the prices of the 400 f5.6 and you can pick a new one up for just £1065, I've tempted myself now.:shake:


mipevo6 said:
Part of me says go for the simple option of the 100-400....
Click to expand...
I don't know anyone who has this lens and doesn't love it.
 
n1kcy said:
Out of these two it should be a simple choice, you said earlier in the thread that the downside of the 400 f5.6 was the lack of flexibility, so why consider a prime 300? Especially if you a) you want a longer length? and b) you are intending to use it with a converter?

Btw I checked the prices of the 400 f5.6 and you can pick a new one up for just £1065, I've tempted myself now.:shake:



I don't know anyone who has this lens and doesn't love it.
Click to expand...

But the 300 has IS and focussed much closer than the 400 prime. Even closer than the 100-400. And you get more flexibility than the 400 prime because you also have an excellent 300 f/4. However, if you would only plan to use it with the 1.4x, it seems a little pointless getting this instead of the 100-400 or 400. I would get the 300 if you would use it bare sometimes, because it excels as a 300 prime.

Footman: I believe the old 300 non IS is slightly sharper than the newer IS model? Possibly be a tab sharper wide open than the 100-400 :shrug:?
 
mipevo6 said:
Does anybody have any comparison shots of a 400 F5.6 or a 300 F4 IS with 1.4 TC ? any comments of how these stack up against a 100-400 ?

Part of me says go for the simple option of the 100-400....
Click to expand...

All the comparisons you want on www.the-digital-picture.com

These threads usually end up with the 100-400L. It's always a tricky compromise decision.
 
I would point out that I think the copy of the 100-400 tested on the-digital-picture is above average in it's performance wide open at 400mm.
 
squishy said:
I would point out that I think the copy of the 100-400 tested on the-digital-picture is above average in it's performance wide open at 400mm.
Click to expand...

A lens can be worse than spec, but never better.

I tested three 100-400L copies side by side before I bought one. They were all identical, all good at 400mm.

I think the rumours about some samples being 'soft at 400mm' is because the lens is extremely popular and there are many thousands of them around, some dating back to the mid-90s. And long lenses like that are a lot harder to use, especially on a crop body camera, than shorter stuff.

If you are unlucky enough to get a poor copy, send it back to Canon and they will re-set and recalibrate everything under warranty, and it will be as sharp as TheDigitalPicture's sample.
 
There are 'golden' 100-400 copies around. If you compare the 100-400 to the 400 prime on that website, the difference is very small. Most people report the prime as being definitely sharper wide open (as it should be when you are comparing a 4x zoom to a prime).
 
squishy said:
There are 'golden' 100-400 copies around. If you compare the 100-400 to the 400 prime on that website, the difference is very small. Most people report the prime as being definitely sharper wide open (as it should be when you are comparing a 4x zoom to a prime).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying don't buy the 100-400L because you might not get a good one?! I seriously believe the chances of getting a duff one, new, are extremely low - Canon have been making the them for over 15 years now. Sure there are sub-standard copies about - it outsells all of Canon's long primes put together and there are thousands and thousands of them about, many of them old, worn, bashed and bruised. No wonder.

In the (unlikely) scenario that you get a sub-standard copy, then send it back to Canon - they can bring any lens up to top spec. Faulty components and sub-standard elements just don't make it to the final assembly stage, so if something's been misaligned, decentered, or somehow damaged, it can be sorted - FOC on a new lens.
 
mipevo6 said:
Part of me says go for the simple option of the 100-400....
Click to expand...

Yes, I've always felt that the best solution is the simplest, I'll stick with the 100-400. Not too difficult a decision as I've just accepted an offer on the 300mm!

micloi said:
I love mine but never get to use it so (SHAMELESS PLUG) I am selling one (practically new) in this forum for only £770+postage ;)
Click to expand...

As I sold my copy of the 400 yesterday I must say that micloi's price is an absolute steal and he deserves his arm bitten off in the rush!
 
Thanks for the discussion and replies to this thread.. It has really made me think about what I want / need.

I think I better ask Kerso for a price on the 100-400
 
HoppyUK said:
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying don't buy the 100-400L because you might not get a good one?! I seriously believe the chances of getting a duff one, new, are extremely low - Canon have been making the them for over 15 years now. Sure there are sub-standard copies about - it outsells all of Canon's long primes put together and there are thousands and thousands of them about, many of them old, worn, bashed and bruised. No wonder.

In the (unlikely) scenario that you get a sub-standard copy, then send it back to Canon - they can bring any lens up to top spec. Faulty components and sub-standard elements just don't make it to the final assembly stage, so if something's been misaligned, decentered, or somehow damaged, it can be sorted - FOC on a new lens.
Click to expand...

Not at all what I'm saying. I own a 100-400 I bought a few months ago and recommend it wherever I can!

I'm saying that there are a few special individuals of this lens floating around that are sharper than the average.
I wouldn't expect it to perform as close to the 400 prime as it does on that comparison.
 
dougan said:
Let us know what price he comes up with!
Click to expand...

Kerso is quoting 1075 + Delivery.....

Exchange rate is obviously not that good at the moment....

Still a decent price though I guess....
 
My 100-400 arrived on Friday.

I got some shots with it Yesterday in poor conditions:-

TP birds thread

Then I hit bushy park today in better light

TP thread with pics


Thanks all of you for your advice and comments:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top