100-400mmL IS -or- 70-200mm f/2.8L + 2x extender?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I am a (relative) beginner, and looking for some advice. I am going on a safari with my wife to Africa in April, and am planning on investing in a decent lens!

I was trying to understand the pros and cons of buying either; (a) a 100-400mmL with IS or (b) a 70-200mm f/2.8L with a 2x extender Which would be most suitable? Or is there another option I have missed? "Suitable" = a combination or image quality, ease-of use, weight, speed, usefulness after the safari etc. Both options will be around the same price (AUD$3700), and I can't afford both!

I currently have a 28-80, and a wide-angle lens. The new lens will go on my old EOS Elan body (still going strong). I had thought of upgrading to a EOS 3 but now think I will wait off and go digital with an EOS D30 or similar later next year. I plan on using Fuji 100 Slide film.

Originally I was thinking of going with the 70-200mm/2.8L + extender option because post-safari, I will get a lot more use out of the 70-200 for portraits, and in conditions where a fast lens is useful. However, the IS capability of the 100-400mm may be most useful for back-of-jeep shots!

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

-- Calvin Bradshaw (calvin.bradshaw@bigpond.com), September 23, 2001

Answers

The 100-400. That's what you'll need for safari, and the 2X TC is too much of a compromise, and the lack of IS will prove a handicap. You definately need that kind of range, and if you get an EOS 3, you can use the 1.4X TC, for a quite reasonable AF 560mm as well. Having played with both, I'd go for an EOS 3 over the D30. Wait for the replacement(s) for the D30 before deciding. Digital isn't quite there yet (for me at least....).

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), September 23, 2001.

On safari you may be able to shoot at shutter speeds that would negate camera shake, but given that this may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, I wouldn't want to be without IS. The 100-400L IS is much better suited to the task. It's simply the one you need.

After safari, if you want to do lots of portraits it would be very worthwhile to get the excellent Canon 85/1.8, 100/2 or even the 70- 200/4L.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), September 23, 2001.


What about the various reports about the 100-400 being too soft at 400mm/F5.6? (Eg: http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_IS_100_400/Canon_I S_100_400.html Is this something to be concerned with or is it only something that could be detected when compared directly to the 400mm prime lens equivalent? Is this something other people have found a problem?

-- Calvin Bradshaw (calvin.bradshaw@bigpond.com), September 24, 2001.

Frankly I think the choice here is 100-400L IS 5.6 vs. the new 70-200L IS 2.8 with 2x.

The armchair expectation is that the 70-200 2.8 with 2x (140-400 5.6) would not quite measure up to the 100-400 5.6 zoom, and would have slower AF. Any actual experience with the 70-200 2x setup yet, and impressions (esp vs. the 100-400L 5.6 IS) of optical sharpness, IS effectiveness with 2x, and AF performance with 2x?

An advantage of the 70-200 IS with 2x extender is that the 70-200 IS lens IS is tripod-aware, and will (should) greatly reduce vibration when using a tripod. (To me, lack of tripod-aware IS is a key weakness in the current 100-400L IS 5.6.) And, of course, the 70-200 sans 2x gives you a fast, versatile, optically top-notch upper mid-range zoom.

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), September 24, 2001.


The 100-400 definately is not "soft" at 400mm. Maybe compared to a prime 400mm F5.6, but compared to ANY consumer zoom at ANY length, it is not soft. I do not own this lens btw (I have a 300 F4 IS and 1.4X TC), but I have used one, and seen many results from it, and with the 1.4X TC on it as well. It's a good lens.

The 70-200 F2.8L IS is very expensive at the mo, and for the same money as that you could get a 300mm F4L IS, 1.4X TC and 2X TC, or maybe a 70-200 F4L and 1.4X and 2X and something else, maybe even the 300 F4L IS as well (perhaps s/h).

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), September 24, 2001.



Believe in me! The real choice is 100-400L IS 5.6! Nothing compare with this option.

-- Francisco Batista maciel (fbmacielcth@bol.com.br), September 24, 2001.

Well...there's primes. ;-P.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), October 04, 2001.

GO WITH THE 100-400. do you really think you will be lugging around a quality tripod on your trip required to use a 400mm lens? by the way this is an "L" series lens, believe me it is high quality!

-- jeff nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), October 28, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ