Which lens?

[Rookie 300d]

I hope someone could help me in a choice of lenses. I am after an L series lens of up to 400mm, but...do i get the 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 and add a converter. Which would give me the best aperture across the board and image quality? Any advice would be very greatful as it took along time to save the money !!!

[nightshade]

Hold on the Canon crew will be here soon I like the 70-200 +converter
but I think they are anti-shake 100-400 guys

[Bushcraft]

The 100-400 is a great lens, IF you get a good copy, some of them are a little soft. IF you will be using it at the higher end most of the time I would go for the 300 (with IS) or the 400 prime (Without IS). I am a huge fan of the 70-200 2.8's with a tele though, some will say they don't go well with a tele but in my experience (Albeit with Nikon, at the time) I was very very very impressed, so sharp and so bright!

Good luck
Kris

[Brian Phipps]

Hi Bud long time no see!

I use the 100-400 quite a bit and have had no problems with any soft images, my friend works for Canon and he says that when the lens came out first there was a spate of soft image complaints.

But people were expecting miricles from a IS lens, like being able to hand hold it a very low shutter speeds and still get sharp results, I thinks its user error and people expecting miricles,

I know many pros that use ths lens and wouldn`t risk using it if they thought for one minutes you would get soft images, check out Ben Halls website most images are taken with a 100-400.

Its canons best selling lens and its not been changed since it was realesed all those years ago,

If you can use a tripod even better than IS will ever be.


Can`t comment on the other lens combination as I`ve never used it.
Your more than welcombe to have a go with mine again, I`m due to come down to Arne in Dorset soon, could meet up again if you like.

If you keen on spending this much money hire the other lens for the day from LCE in Southampton and meet me to use the other and compare.

Cheers
Brian

[Rookie 300d]

Thanks for the advice Brian. That would be good to meet at Arne just let me know when you are going.

Paul.

[Kev Lewis]

Another very satified user of the 100-400mm but I do shoot mainly on a tripod rather than rely on electrickery for sharp images. If the majority of your work is general photography then personally I would go for the 70-200 as it is very very sharp and the AF is very quick. combining that lens with a x1.4TC (not the x2 as that is oooo) would give you a 340mm f4 still faster than the 100-400 but short on focal length.

[Raffman]

I have the 100-400L IS, now I own it I'm kicking myself I didnt get it sooner, I was concerned about not getting a sharp copy but I have no issues what so ever with mine. I use it throughout the range and so its versatility cant be matched for quality. I used to own the 70-200L IS 2.8 and the 400L 5.6, both are amazing lenes but you have the inconvienience of swaping around. If you're going to have a 1.4 TC attached most the time go the 100-400. I wouldn't bother with a 2x TC on the 70-200L, the AF speed and quailty takes too much away from a great lens. I think the 300L IS f4 is also a good option if you dont need between 100-300mm.

heres a image taken with my 100-400L IS
note: click on the image to see it at proper size.


Raff

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Kev Lewis

Another very satified user of the 100-400mm but I do shoot mainly on a tripod rather than rely on electrickery for sharp images. If the majority of your work is general photography then personally I would go for the 70-200 as it is very very sharp and the AF is very quick. combining that lens with a x1.4TC (not the x2 as that is oooo) would give you a 340mm f4 still faster than the 100-400 but short on focal length.

combining the 70-200 with a 1.4 converter would give a max focal length of 280 rather than 340 wouldn't it? Excluding the crop factor.

Matt

[Boddie]

Does anyone actually know someone that has had a soft copy recently, or is it just an urban myth?

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Boddie

Does anyone actually know someone that has had a soft copy recently, or is it just an urban myth?

there's probably an element of urban myth, word of a dud spreads like wildfire on forums.

But I think there's an element of truth in it. When I was in the market for my lens I read a review of the 100-400 in Photography Monthly. They claimed the lens they had was OK, but not great, but did say that they had reviewed several 100-400s over the years and they have varied quite a bit in their sharpness.

The other source of the rumours is the following website which has received a lot of attention on various forums;
Forgotten 400

if you look at the comparison of the 400 prime and the 100-400 at f5.6, the 100-400 is very soft. Again, there are rumours that this might have been a dodgy 100-400 that he had (although he denies this at the bottom of the review).

I'm sure 99% of them are absolutely fine though.

Matt