Canon 70-200 + TC or 100-400 or 300 + TC?

[j2cuba]

Hi. I have a dilemma and would be grateful for help / advice etc.

I currently use a Canon 70-300 IS but have never been satisfied with it - v sharp at the wide end, but too soft at 300mm and at times a little short. So, I want to upgrade.

Uses: long distance portraits plus occasional wildlife (mainly zoos) and the odd airshow.

Choices:

(a) 70-200L IS 2.8 + canon 2x teleconverter (most flexible range; great IQ without TC; pricey)

(b) Canon 100-400L (q good value; some reviews suggest not as well built or sharp as other L lenses)

(b) 300L f4 IS with canon 1.4x TC. (sharp without TC; fixed focal length)

My key question here is about sharpness. I have found some reviews but it's hard to get clear info.

With the TC attached to the 70-200 or 300, which would be sharpest at 400mm?

Very grateful for any advice / experience.

Thanks.

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by j2cuba

With the TC attached to the 70-200 or 300, which would be sharpest at 400mm?

Monofocals are always sharper. You're sticking a TC on both lenses so it's still an even playing field. The 300mm will be sharper.

[matt wilson]

Not sure it's a totally correct comparisson.I have seen a good test where the 70 200 and 100 400 are compared using Canon 1.4 convertor .The difference is marginal.

I use the 100 400 and am very pleased with it .As for build quality it's built like a tank and weighs a lot !

I would say for you it's important to judge whether portrait or the zoo shots have priority.If the former then definitely go for the 70 200.

One potential problem with the 100 400 is the minimum focussing distance it's not that close and you could end up running a portrait shoot via a megaphone !

The 70 200 is going to give you far more light gathering capacity with it's wide aperture.

There have been several occasions when the relative slowness of my 100 400 has been frustrating .ISO has to be bumped up or the aperture left wide open as light levels drop.

Your subject is a common one and there's no correct answer .But as a user I would, as I say, guide you away from what I use, but then I rarely shoot portraits .

Finally from all that I have read the 1.4 x canon tele is far better than the 2x no matter what lens you are putting it on.Bear in mind that converter will rob you of light including in the viewfinder .

I have gone on a bit but one final tip.Either way you are looking at a fair chunk of money .Go to a decent camera store explain your needs and try and borrow both set ups .I have been pleasantly surprised .Having offered driving licence and bank card to show I was not going to run off they let me go out and shoot for a decent time in my own town taking no form of security .

[OldBoy]

Not a Canon user but have the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR and have used it with both 1.4 and 2x Nikon converters attached to my D3. Both have worked without problems and given cracking results. In fact I use the 70-200mm F2.8 VR plus 1.4 converter as a carry round lens. I also have the Nikon 300mm F4 and have used both converters with that and got cracking results. My advice would be to get the 70-200mm F2.8 IS plus either converters, as that covers a greater range from 70mm upto 400mm.

[j2cuba]

Thanks all. Min focus distance is a good point - thanks. Finding a shop to try them out is excellent advice.

My priority would be portraits (son running about!) - other uses are rarer - so I'm erring towards the 70-200 plus a TC for the occasional zoo trip. The question is, 1.4x or 2x - 2x seems better value and gets the long reach - although I've read similar thoughts about the 2x as Scott Wilson. 1.4x then crop is perhaps the best option?

[cosmicma]

i have a 70 - 200 with a 1.4x converter and they work very well together givin nice sharp images but maximum focal length is 280mm
i believe the 2x converter produces softer images but would give you the 400mm you are looking for

to be honest i would go for both
the 100 - 400 for the wildlife ( plus 1.4 converter if you so desire )
and the 70 - 200 for your portraits

be extravagant you can never have too many lenses

there's a point to this...
people tend to buy long lenses for their reach the shorter end of the lens is not as important as it's longest reach and where wildlife is concerned you never have enough reach
a 300mm prime even with a 1.4 converter attached will give superior results than an equivilent zoom ( something worth considering )
the 100 - 400 will be my next lens purchase to replace my sigma 170 - 500 which goes soft beyond 400mm anyway
i allready have the 24 -105 f4 L is which makes a great carry around lens i think this lens is more suited for the family portrate jobs and the 70 - 200mm with or without converter for wildlife etc..

if you consider the 100 - 400 L lens try before you buy it is known that some can be quite soft make sure the one you purchase isn't