Has anyone tested this combo? Is image quality degraded severely? Does AF still work well? How does this combo compared with Canon 100-400mm L zoom, and Canon 400mm f/5.6L? Thanks.
I'm looking at the Canon 100-400mm lens as well, or the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II with the teleconverter. As the cost is an issue, I thinking the Canon 100-400 might be the way to go as I can get it almost $1000 AUD cheaper than the 70-200mm. (not including the extender). If anyone has any thoughts on the two lenses, that would be greatly appreciated. The lens will be mainly used for my kids outdoor sports (Cricket and Aussie Rules football) where there will be plenty of light.
Posts: 1,340
Threads: 55
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
I find the 100-400 easy to use outdoors in most daylight conditions, provided you're happy enough with higher ISO. I routinely allow up to ISO1600 on 50D and ISO3200 on 7D. Even on the gloomiest days I can find enough shutter speed with that.
I can't compare that against the other lenses though.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
[quote name='actuary616' date='13 July 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1279047008' post='986']
Has anyone tested this combo? Is image quality degraded severely? Does AF still work well? How does this combo compared with Canon 100-400mm L zoom, and Canon 400mm f/5.6L? Thanks.[/quote]
I had the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk I) and used a friend's 400/5.6 and 100-400 IS occasionally. For me, the ultimate combination would be 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) + 1.4X TC + 2X TC. Why?
1. Because I will have a fast lens whenever I want.
2. Because the IQ of the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) is very high and will likely be not that much different with the 2X TC from the IQ of the 100-400 IS.
3. Because I don't like push-pull zoom.
4. Because the IS mechanism of the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) is better than that of 100-400 IS (and infinitely better than that of the 400/5.6... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> )
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='Yakim' date='21 July 2010 - 06:48 AM' timestamp='1279691293' post='1177']
I had the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk I) and used a friend's 400/5.6 and 100-400 IS occasionally. For me, the ultimate combination would be 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) + 1.4X TC + 2X TC. Why?
1. Because I will have a fast lens whenever I want.
2. Because the IQ of the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) is very high and will likely be not that much different with the 2X TC from the IQ of the 100-400 IS.
3. Because I don't like push-pull zoom.
4. Because the IS mechanism of the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) is better than that of 100-400 IS (and infinitely better than that of the 400/5.6... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> )
[/quote]
And did you take into account the AF speed of the 70-200 going down to half speed with the 1.4x TC and down even more with the 2x TC?
[quote name='Brightcolours' date='21 July 2010 - 07:40 AM' timestamp='1279694404' post='1180']
And did you take into account the AF speed of the 70-200 going down to half speed with the 1.4x TC and down even more with the 2x TC?[/quote]
Please note that I did say "For me". I never stated this combo is without flaws. Any choice is personal and has both pros and cons. No doubt that for some, the 100-400 IS will be a better choice. What I am sure of is that "For me", points 1 and 3 are very important. Hence, I will never get a 100-400 IS.