Upgrade from Canon 70-200L F4

sarahpix

sarahpix

Messages
535
Name
Sarah
Edit My Images
Yes
I am thinking of upgrading from my Canon 70-200L F4 which I find a bit short when I am at the wrong end of the rugby pitch. I looked at the Canon100-400 (expensive and some say heavy), wondered about Sigma (I have not been lucky with Sigma lenses and they never stay long) and considered changing to the Canon 70-200L F2.8 with a x2 teleconverter. I will need to sell my F4 and possibly my Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Asp. (IF) Lens to fund it.
All suggestions welcome.
 
What about the 70-300L?
 
Don't use a 2x converter. It'll leave you very dissapointed with your results. 1.4x works great but 2x...
 
If 280mm is enough, then a 1.4x Kenko Pro 300 telecon might do the trick. Very good for £120-ish.

Otherwise, 100-400L is the obvious choice. Considering it's strong all round performance, it's a pretty good choice too.
 
I've read that the 100/400 goes a bit soft at 300+ focal length.
I was going through the same thoughts recently and fixed my mind on a 300 F4 prime + 1.4 converter, the 400f5.6 is too big and heavy (for me and would have the same f stop as the 300f4 + 1.4). The 300 plus converter would give the flexibility of two lenses focal lengthts. Cost wise its all about equal, although the Mk3 converter is a lot more expensive than the Mk2 and tbh doesnt offer a huger difference in IQ etc in normal use.
70/300 DO (2nd hand) or the new 70/300L are well worth a look if you need a zoom but you'd still need a 1.4 to make it wortwhile.

Are using a crop body? If not then a 1.6 would give you greater effective reach and more Mp would give you greater cropability.
Matt
 
MatBin said:
...I was going through the same thoughts recently and fixed my mind on a 300 F4 prime + 1.4 converter, the 400f5.6 is too big and heavy (for me and would have the same f stop as the 300f4 + 1.4)...
Click to expand...
There's only 60g between the two with the 400 being slightly the heavier. I have the 400 and use it for wildlife where it really does excel. I think you may benefit from a maximum aperture, I used to shoot football and rugby with an old FD 300mm f/4 and it was great but get used to only shooting action at your end. With the crop factor of your camera the 300mm f/4 would be my choice in your situation. As has been mentioned it performs extremely well when combined with a 1.4x converter.
 
Last edited:
Hi Sarah,

I bought the 100mm-400mm about 2yrs ago, wouldn't swap it, consistantly good shots.
I usualy shoot handheld with it and have no complaints, regarding the weight, cant see it being much different to the 70mm- 200mm f2.8.
 
Thanks for all your advice.
I will be putting it on a 50D.
I saw some bird photos on a different forum using the 70-200 2.8 with a x1.4 and x2 and they were really disappointing. Maybe it would be a good idea to rent before buying or find someone in Glasgow that has a generous nature and a 100-400.
 
sarahpix said:
Thanks for all your advice.
I will be putting it on a 50D.
I saw some bird photos on a different forum using the 70-200 2.8 with a x1.4 and x2 and they were really disappointing. Maybe it would be a good idea to rent before buying or find someone in Glasgow that has a generous nature and a 100-400.
Click to expand...

There are three versions of the 70-200L 2.8, but the new Mk2 takes a 2x extender pretty well and runs the 100-400L close. But then that combo is twice the price.

The rule is, if you want 400mm, then buy a lens designed primarily to do that - it will always beat anything with an extender.

300L 4 is great at 300, and has IS, but again not so good with an extender. 400L 5.6 is also very good, but doesn't have IS and has a long minimum focusing distance.

Which leaves the 100-400L, which is almost as sharp as the primes, does everything, has IS, focuses close, and isn't that big or heavy really, nor very expensive. It's a very hard combo to beat.

You can compare them all side by side for IQ, with and without extenders, on www.the-digital-picture.com Very good site.
 
The 300L F4 is a great lens and not too large or heavy.
If you require a zoom have you considered the 70-300L, not cheap though.
 
I've heard mixed things about the performance of the Kenko extenders, even the 'pro' ones - I went for the Canon 1.4 II because of that. You can get hold of mint copies of those for about £180.
 
My guess is that if you buy a 100 - 400 you will find yourself using it at the 400 end for a lot of the time. In which case it might be worth looking at the 400 mm prime. True it doesn't have IS but I would suggest that overall the IQ is better.

If you can afford it then the 70 -200 2.8 MKII +Canon 2X extender then you have a more versatile setup for little drop in IQ and a smaller bank balance. The 70-200 has ac4 stop IS
 
I also thought about getting the 100-400, but decided on the 300 F4L prime too. I've now got the 70-200 F4L, 1.4x and the 300 F4L. I find that the image quality I get out of this combo is excellent and while it might not give me the flexibility of 100-400, it's the image quality that's important to me.
 
iced_jacob said:
the new sigma 120-300 is supposed to be a good performer..Havent tried it though!
Click to expand...

it is getting great reviews, but even the older non-OS is a great lens. constant f2.8, chuck a 1.4x on it and you get 420mm at constant f4 with no noticable focus speed drop or image quality. so better than the 100-400.

it is a beast though, youll probably want a monopod with that.
 
I have had a couple of sigma lenses and have never really got on with them (mind you that could be my choice of focal length rather than the brand). But now I am confused again. I used to have a push/ pull lens so the canon would not be so much of a mystery. As long as it is a sharp enough copy the weight may not be so much of a problem as my hands are decidedly unsteady and I have a growing collection of monopods and tripods. There is a laugh to be had watching me snatch up tripod and run as muddy 16 year olds hurtle towards me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top