Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, or

[wolfie]

My dear wife wants me to move from the dark side by buying me an L lens.

I have short listed two lens, one being the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L (none IS) + the Canon 2 x teleconvertor

the alternative being the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the 70-200 + the teleconvertor as I think this may give me the best of both worlds.

At present I use the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and also the 50-500mm, so effectively the new lens will be as a replacement for the 50-500.

Hopefully I will be going on safari in the new year, so I want to make the right decision.

Any thoughts on what would be the best way to go, or is there an alternative that I should consider.

Many thanks

Harry

[sassan]

Harry consider today as your lucky day as I happened to pass through the same path you are getting through so may be my experience would be useful for you.

First I think your options are not balance in terms of money as you first package is about 60-75 % higher than the second option. Well you may as well get what you are paying for.

70-200mm L IS by many quotes is one of the best lenses Canon ever made. Is the highest priced in it family of four; F/4, F/2.8 non IS and new F/4 with IS (BTW the F/4 in absolute terms has better resolution that all but you can find the subtle difference only on film with no distinctions what so ever on digital media). Many call it a Tank, at least its weight does feel that way. However image quality is like nothing you have ever experienced before. Believe me when I say that as I am one of those disbeliever that won't get convinced easy especially when I am to pay top price for something. Image color render and capability to deal with direct light falling straight into lens without any internal reflection is a unique delicacy of this baby. This feature is brought in by not only the patent unique Canon's coating on glass but by especial way in which surface of lens is cut, that is not a smooth surface but micro roughness and indentations that cause that especial damping of internal reflections. From the day one having it I know its just like my wife, "Love for ever". It has replaced a lot of my prior lenses and is always with me even on far far journeys despite the weight. The only cons I can quot is heavy weight (I consider that as a way to strengthen my neck and shoulder muscles). And the second nag is for probably my excess expectations as I was thinking I will not see the blur image any more. Still that happens, so no matter how good the IS is still don't forget your measures to be steady.

2x extender is the other lens that I have and use commonly with the big baby. This is the extender most photographer don't like in favor of 1.4x . I am not so sure. I have sharp eyes for Chromatic aberration and other glass additive problems, I see none with this one. Things you want to remember;
- AF won't work if your lens has F narrower than 2.8 (With 1.4x the limit is F/4).
- It won't fit on lenses 135mm or shorter in focal length.
- There are look alike old and newer versions, Mk I and Mk II. You don't want to pay for the older version, no matter how cheaper it may be as the difference between them is not one of face lift but major architecture changes and MK II has a weather sealing, newer coating in addition to optical improvements. May be one reason many don't like this one is most tests are from the older version.
Cons here;
- You will see some decrease in AF speed (Not too bad though)
- You loss 2 stops
As user, I love it and use it commonly. Sometimes can't which image was with extender, unless looking at EXIF.

For your second choice 100-400 that is a very popular lens between bird and animal shooters, picture quality is still excellent though you don't have that fancy F/2.8 that can make significant difference when light is low or bird is a fast flying one. With adequate light you possibly won't see much difference and have the convenience of not going through the add/remove process of extender. I don't have this lens so can't help you any further.

I have the Bigma 50-500mm and if one wish, would like to see Canon making L class in that range. The lens was my favorite far reaching lens before 70-200 IS. Though still I like this lens a lot but image quality especially in terms of color saturation and render, is not a match. Bigma is a lot lengthier in highest focal length. Narrow F stop was the other hassle and needless to say when use this lens with sigma 2x, AF is dead completely and out of focus images a common problem as the view finder doesn't have split prism or any manual focus assist. Of course now we are talking of 200 or I believe 150 to 1000mm range. ( When extender added to 50-500, due to bulge of 2x elements into original lens barrel, you need to move the focal lens of mother lens to 100 so losing the some of the low focal lengths.
My Bigma may soon find its way to ebay sadly.

Conclusion; If money not a hassle go for your right instinct i.e. 70-200 with 2x extender. Don't forget you are choosing better good and better so no matter what you chose, I am sure you will be happy with the result. I am hearing a lot of good about the 28-70 F/2.8 Bigma so no matter what, you may want to keep it unless you are planning for more wallet damage and may want to consider 17-40mm L or 10-22mm EFs or may be both. I have them both and usually the 10-22mm is the other lens always traveling with me, though 17-40 is one of the very popular ones by professionals and incidental the cheapest L class Canon, may be one of the first steps into L for many photographers to own and become believer of "L" class quality

Hope this help and treat use with nice images once back home safly.

[miketoll]

Why the none IS? Money I would guess but put off the converter for now and go for the IS and spend more later for the converter when the bank manager will speak to you again. Nice problem to have though and a wife in a million!

[wolfie]

Many thanks sassan and very comprehensive, but by buying the non IS model the difference in cost is not quite the 60-75%.

Mike, yes money the reason for the non IS model. As I stated in my first post I've never had the benefit of IS and find I can manage the Bigma without any problem, so the 400mm of the 70-200 + 2 x telextender should not be to much of a problem especially considering the £350 difference.

Again many thanks for your help in making a decision.

Harry

[sassan]

Originally Posted by wolfie

buying the non IS model

Yes difference is less I was thinking of IS. I do turn my IS off at times as like you I am not a firm believer of IS either. I think the main reason for buying IS now is that you have that piece of mind that you got the best of best money can offer (Psychological comfort). I see a lot of people selling their non-IS soon to upgrade into IS, thus lossing more money. But if you are sure you are not one of those who feels to have the top of the line in features (?able on applications) then non-IS is fine and make you not to loss as much weight considering every penny in the pocket. But frankly I am with mike on IS issue.

[sassan]

BTW I just uploaded a 200mm of 70-200 IS F/2.8 with 2x extender at work for you.
LINK.
Photoshop post processing is limited to minimal basic work.

[robski]

Harry

A point to watch with non-IS models of Canon lens I learnt to my cost. The non-IS models are quiet old and Canon may not be able to supply replacement parts. The Auto focus unit which contains a glass grating is quiet fragile.

I dropped my lens from 3 feet off the tripod. No external damage but AF unit jammed. The lens was a write-off.

So worth checking with Canon UK service dept if these parts are still available for this lens.

[wolfie]

Thanks rob, Will check that out before buying, not sure what the boss would say if I told her she would have to fork out an extra £300 +.

Mind you O could say it's all Robs fault

Harry

[Stephen]

Harry, just spotted this thread, so am a little late coming to it. I have the 70-200 f2.8 non IS version. I have to agree with Sassan, it is an absolutely brilliant lens. My needs may not be the same as yours but I can assure you that in terms of quality you will be hard pushed to beat this lens, the f2.8 makes it superb and even at that aperture images are pin sharp and the bokeh is sublime.

Checkout the review at http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

I bought the lens off Ebay I would have liked the IS version but it was just too much for me. However I have to say that I get more keepers fromthis lens than I used to with a 75-300 IS lens I used to have.

I recently added the 1.4 extender, didn't want to reduce the max aperture any more than F4 and frankly with the 1.3x mag factor of my 1DMk2N giving me 260mm equiv +1.4x which made it 364 equiv, it was enough for me. The same test site as above reckon that this is one of the finest extenders giving a hardly discernable loss in quality. However at the end of the day its horses for courses and you may need that extra reach

[wolfie]

Thanks Stephen, I've read a few articals that say much the same as you regarding the 1.4 extender, but feel that this will not give me the range I require when on safari.

I could of course take my Sigma 50-500mm with me, but was hoping to travel with just my 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 plus extender.

I have already arranged the purchase of the 70-200. So will play with it for a few weeks before deciding on which extender to buy.

Last year when on safari, I reckon 75-80% of my photo's where taken using the 24-70mm as we get very close to most animals. It was just the odd cat/s that required a longer lens, however the amount of very coulorful birds was a different kettle of fish altogether, especially the kingfishers and bee-eaters.

This where I think I need the 400mm that the 2x extender will give me.

I could of course ask my wife to buy me the 100-400 IS lens. I wonder if she will go for that, after all we're only talking approx £2000 for the lot

Harry