Lens choice

[Vectisbirder]

I went with the 70-300 in the end. It really came down to extra reach with the 300 end, IS and the fact that the 70-200 L lens was a little too pricey for me. I took my camera in with me to test the lenses with and I also noticed that this L lens was soft on the left side. Odd.

[squishy]

strange... maybe a slightly 'off' lens?

i think you made a good choice! (but then, i'd be happy with either )

[Vectisbirder]

Originally Posted by squishy

strange... maybe a slightly 'off' lens?

Probably. I have heard of dodgy examples of the 70-200 f4 L.

[Vectisbirder]

Changed my mind and went for the 70-200 f4 L after all. After a weekend playing with it I decided I didn't really like the 70-300, the autofocus was rough and hunted a lot and the IS hammered the camera battery like nothing else.
So, I went back and changed the 70-300 for the 70-200 L, despite the price difference (£58.73). I made sure I got a decent one and not the iffy one that was soft down the side!

[BillyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Agreed, but unless you already have a teleconverter, anything other than Canon's own, would be doing the L-series lens an injustice, so you would need to factor in about another £230.00 or so for the converter.

Regards
Mike.

A Sigma or Kenko 1.4x will do the job just as well as the Canon. You can pick them up on Ebay for as little as £60.

Having owned all 3 brands I would never pay out for a Canon again. I had a Sigma and I thought that the Canon would give me the edge so I paid £180 for a new one and flogged the Sigma.

The result? - no difference. So I flogged the Canon (only lost £10) and picked-up a Kenko Teleplus for less than £60.

[Vectisbirder]

The Kenko 1.4x Pro is supposed to be very good and as sharp as the Canon and as it is £50 or more cheaper than the Canon, I will certainly look at getting one when the time comes.

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by Vectisbirder

The Kenko 1.4x Pro is supposed to be very good and as sharp as the Canon and as it is £50 or more cheaper than the Canon, I will certainly look at getting one when the time comes.

The Kenko Pro 300 1.4x tc is a good one. I have one and am very happy with the results it gives.
Roger

[irishlad]

Originally Posted by Ollie

The Kenko Pro 300 1.4x tc is a good one. I have one and am very happy with the results it gives.
Roger

i use this teleconverter on my 70-200mm F4 L and i cant fault it to be honest, have taken some really nice shots with my lens and this tc, and u get the F4 option when u remove the TC .


a good choice in my book

Kev

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Ollie

The Kenko Pro 300 1.4x tc is a good one. I have one and am very happy with the results it gives.
Roger

Same here. I've got two, one is almost permanently on my Sigma 150mm, plus one on my Canon 300mm F4 IS, even though it's an L lens.
Can't fault any of them.

[Photomage]

Originally Posted by Vectisbirder

Changed my mind and went for the 70-200 f4 L after all. After a weekend playing with it I decided I didn't really like the 70-300, the autofocus was rough and hunted a lot and the IS hammered the camera battery like nothing else.
So, I went back and changed the 70-300 for the 70-200 L, despite the price difference (£58.73). I made sure I got a decent one and not the iffy one that was soft down the side!

I have a 70-200mm f/4 L USM and it is really sharp. Sharper than my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM. The bokeh is better as well.

I think this normal. Zoom lenses with a wider range just aren't as sharp.

Seems to always be a trade-off of some kind. Unless you have the money for a prime lens, but then you have no zoom, and they cost a fortune.

If you can get close enough with a 70-200mm f/4 L, then you should get some amazing results.