|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
10 Mar 2005, 07:28 (Ref:1248336) | #1 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 148
|
Canon 100-400 L series+ x2 converter
Hi Guys I have been working myself into an early grave at the moment(two 24 hour shifts in one week!) in an effort to buy the Canon 100-400 L series Lens from Warehouse express and i was wondering what the canon users here thought of this piece of glass? If it's is worth a look, what about hooking it up to a x2 converter as us mere mortals seem to be pushed further and further back from the track each year. I have just purchased a 20D and thought that I had better invest in some decent kit to go with it. so would the converter kill the image quality???
Thanks in advance Paul PS sorry if this is a bit garbled I'm just finishing my night shift |
||
__________________
" Just because a press release has a dancing donkey on the top of it doesn't mean you've got to believe it " Ben Samuelson TVR. |
10 Mar 2005, 08:17 (Ref:1248357) | #2 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 440
|
Can't help you with the lens but my friend who ordered a Minolta 7D recently from Warehouse Express was delighted with the promptness of their service.
|
||
__________________
L'ENDURANCE, C'EST LE MANS! |
10 Mar 2005, 08:49 (Ref:1248374) | #3 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 656
|
I've only used the mark 1 version of the Canon 2x TC, on my 70-200 2.8 IS and I was not impressed at all with the results.
Sharpness is noticably worse and focusing speed & accuracy is shot to pieces. Bear in mind that you won't be able to autofocus at all with the combination of 100-400, 20D and 2x TC. I've attached a couple of 100% crops (beloved of photo geeks, but useful here!) to illustrate the difference. Also, by most accounts the 70-200 is the sharper lens, so if it's poor on that then it could well be worse on the 100-400. Bear in mind that I'm talking about the older version of the convertor and that the new one is apparently better... It had better be because I'll probably be buying it before next week! I'm facing the same problem as Mike Hoyer - short lens and shooting at Silverstone next week, so I need something longer. For your own use, I'd just stick with the 100-400 - it ought to be plenty long enough. |
|
|
10 Mar 2005, 09:12 (Ref:1248381) | #4 | ||
TT Photo Of The Year Winner - 2009 & 2010
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 533
|
I've been using the 100-400 for about 18 months now and have been getting decent results with it (as well as some not so decent results!) Although it's not as sharp as a prime lens I find the flexibility of the zoom useful.
I did try using it with a 1.4 teleconverter and the combination struggled. So as gi_gav suggests pick up the lens first - see how it works, and then decide if you want to spend the additional money on the TC. I'm marshalling at Silverstone on the 19th so hopefully I'll bump into a few of you around the circuit somewhere. Last edited by neil_davidson2; 10 Mar 2005 at 09:14. |
||
__________________
Don't shop hungry; Don't drive angry. |
10 Mar 2005, 10:16 (Ref:1248421) | #5 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 150
|
I use a 10D (though I'm envious of your 20D...). I was advised by a pro not to use a zoom, and bought a 300 f4 L IS USM. It's a fabulous lens and I have no regrets at all. Also, a thought that ocurred to me whilst making my decision was how often I'd use this large (100-400) lens on anything under 400mm, not often. So the 300 won.
The other piece of advice I was given by the same guy was not to buy the x2 but the x1.4 as you only lose 1 stop. Again I took the advice and I am thrilled at the results it gives me - certainly magazine quality images, and I never use a monopod. My next purchase will probably be a 70-200mm f2.8 L IS. This is a smaller lens and therefore mobility won't be such an issue as with the 100-400. |
||
|
10 Mar 2005, 10:33 (Ref:1248428) | #6 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 150
|
I found the photo I was looking for...
http://img220.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img2...ge=rosa5ll.jpg I took this at Le Mans 2004, with the 300mm, without a convertor, THROUGH the fence. Good enough for me :-) |
||
|
10 Mar 2005, 12:48 (Ref:1248501) | #7 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 440
|
Impressive! Couldn't really tell the fence was there!
|
||
__________________
L'ENDURANCE, C'EST LE MANS! |
10 Mar 2005, 14:19 (Ref:1248563) | #8 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 656
|
in case it's not clear in my post above, the left-hand image is a 100% crop of a shot with the 70-200. The right-hand one is 70-200 with 2x TC (mark 1).
Both are completely unsharpened. |
|
|
10 Mar 2005, 21:35 (Ref:1248987) | #9 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 148
|
Thanks for your replies gents, so if you were in my shoes with about a grand to spend on a lens what would you buy?? (Bearing in mind this is a probably going to be a one off purchase) I would like to try and stay loyal to using Canon only products but if you have any other suggestions I'm all ears.
|
||
__________________
" Just because a press release has a dancing donkey on the top of it doesn't mean you've got to believe it " Ben Samuelson TVR. |
10 Mar 2005, 22:24 (Ref:1249019) | #10 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 130
|
70-210 f2.8L and a 1.4x teleconvertor...
|
||
|
11 Mar 2005, 23:09 (Ref:1249970) | #11 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 148
|
I think I have now opened a huge can of proverbial worms and am more confused than ever I don't know what to do and I certainly cant carry on doing overtime as the season will start soon and I don't want to miss it. Why is the 70-200 F2.8 two to three hundred pounds more than the longer 100-400? Is it a second generation Lens or something, why oh why do I choose such expensive hobbies!
Please be patient with me if I am asking painfully obvious questions. I am reading Michael Langfords Basics of Photography and trying to teach myself the techniques and theories if only I didn't have a job with an odd shift pattern I would enrol in a night class in college |
||
__________________
" Just because a press release has a dancing donkey on the top of it doesn't mean you've got to believe it " Ben Samuelson TVR. |
11 Mar 2005, 23:14 (Ref:1249974) | #12 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 130
|
It's £130 or so cheaper than the 70-200 2.8 IS
It would be cheaper because it's a variable aperature lens - f4.5-5.6... where as the 70-200 is a static f2.8 and therefore faster. Easy to make a zoom longer - but more expensive to make it faster as it uses more glass. As a lens gets longer - it gets more expensive to make it faster. When I say faster - I mean it lets more light in - though this will also be reflected by the focus speed - my 70-200 2.8 focuses like lightening! If you don't want the IS then the 70-200 is a fair bit cheaper than the 100-400 at £770. Last edited by JamesC; 11 Mar 2005 at 23:16. |
||
|
11 Mar 2005, 23:32 (Ref:1249979) | #13 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 148
|
Thanks for clearing that one up for me James much appreciated, I think your suggestion is looking the favourite at the moment I will just have to save up for the 1.4 converter and get that in the summer.
By the way great photo Group C |
||
__________________
" Just because a press release has a dancing donkey on the top of it doesn't mean you've got to believe it " Ben Samuelson TVR. |
14 Mar 2005, 12:59 (Ref:1251558) | #14 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 150
|
Kind of you to comment. The same pro who's advice I quoted above also told me to buy the best I can possibly afford.
More overtime then ! |
||
|
14 Mar 2005, 19:57 (Ref:1251912) | #15 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,744
|
as someone said i think in this thread or one similar...if you buy something like 70-200 you'll spend most of the time with it set to 200, the rest of the time you'll be wishing it was a bit longer. 300mm(f.4 if need be, 2.8 better) plus 1x4 converter would be what i would aim for. the first thing you need when shooting cars is as much length as you can get...not 70mm...imho of course. ask any pro shooting cars what they would aim for first...i know the budget issues....but that has to be your benchmark.
Last edited by kdr; 14 Mar 2005 at 19:58. |
|
__________________
I want you to drive flat out |
18 Mar 2005, 06:12 (Ref:1254958) | #16 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4
|
I use the 7-200L USM 2.8 with a 2x converter. I works great, fast focus and sharp. The IS is not as sharp. IS is of use if you are taking a lot of slow or stationary subjects. When panning for instance you will not need the IS.
|
||
|
20 Mar 2005, 08:14 (Ref:1256518) | #17 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 148
|
Hi guys, well after doing 72 hours overtime this month and my gorlfriend finding out just how much these lens cost I have had to come to my senses and stick to buying the 100-400 but with the 1.4 converter as recommended by you. I had just found the 400 f2.8 aswell, but with Mrs TuscanR going nuts with me spending a grand on a lens I think I might be single if I spent five and a half!! Once again thanks you for your informed and considered opinions. If you see someone looking a bit out of there depth but with a huge grin on his face at the circuits, it will probabally be me.
Cheers guys hope to see you out there soon |
||
__________________
" Just because a press release has a dancing donkey on the top of it doesn't mean you've got to believe it " Ben Samuelson TVR. |
23 Mar 2005, 13:13 (Ref:1259751) | #18 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 23
|
I personally wouldnt use the 100-400 with any kind of converter , the reason being whatever the conv ... 1.4x or 2.0x equates to the minimum F capability of the lens ... for example the standard is f5.6 so multiply that by either 1.4 or 2.0 then that is the minimum you can work to , also with the 2.0x the images WILL become very soft .
If its distance you are looking for perhaps youd be better off going for a prime lens say 300 f2.8 Sigma or the like ! that way youll be working with either 300(420 with the 1.4 and 600 with 2x ) and F4 along with f5.6 , the cost will jump but there are many deals you can get if you have a good old look around hope this helps ... regards |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon 20D | Peter Mallett | Motorsport Art & Photography | 13 | 30 Jan 2006 06:21 |
Canon Lenses for Canon 350d? | Michael Wyles | Motorsport Art & Photography | 14 | 18 Jul 2005 17:50 |
Where Teleplus Kenko 2X NAF Converter (UK) | TerryC | Motorsport Art & Photography | 11 | 23 Aug 2004 09:55 |