Extra length! 200+

[cirks]

Ok - I've taken numerous shots in the last year where extra reach would have been a big benefit. I've got a 70-200f2.8IS plus 1.4 but now loooking at possibly also getting one of the following:
100-400L f4-5.6
400L f5.6
300L f4

-attractions of the 100-400 are the zoom and IS. However, don't want to start using this instead of the 70-200!
-attraction of the 400 prime is the 'primeness' and that reviews I've read suggest it beats the 100-400 at the 400 end by a fair bit.
- attraction of the 300L is the f4 vs the 5.6 of the 400 and that it has IS.
Likely to add a 2x to the collection too.

Almost certain to be 2nd hand for any of the above unless Kerso does me a stonking deal!

Anything I should look for on the above? I know the 100-400 is more common so more of you may have experience of that than the others but any comments welcome.

Cheers.

[jon-]

I've only used the 100-400 out of the bunch. Even with a 2x i found it sharpish though AF wouldn't function on my body which is a bit of a shame. It's no prime.

For me it would be between the 100-400 and the 300f4. The 100-400 gets really slow with a 2x and as you already pointed out, you might find times when it's on camera when the speed of the 70-200 f2.8 would have been useful. I'd never try and shoot 400-800 without IS without a tripod which rules out the slow 400 prime.

Edited by jon- on Monday 31st August 11:54

[Ed_P]

I've got the 70-200 F2.8 L IS which I sometimes use with the 1.4x. I've also got the 400mm F5.6 L. It depends what you're planning to use it for. I'm a keen birdwatcher and the 400mm is reckoned to be one of the best "birds in flight" lenses because it's sharp fully open, very fast focussing and light (compared with some of the other "biggies"). The lack of IS can be a problem, but for me I invaraibly have it on a beanbag or mono/tripod. Image quality is exceptional. The combination of the two lenses and the 1.4x is just about perfect for me.

Ed ...

[4hero]

I have both the 70-200 f2.8IS and 100-400. I had the 100-400 first, then opted for the 70-200 (must stop looking at peoples photos on internet ), then was tempted to sell the 100-400. I really cannot part with it, it's the perfect combo of zooms in my opinion.

[Hedgeman]

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 100-400.

Both are superb lenses. The only downside is the weight if you're carrying them both around. Some people don't like the push-pull zoom on the 100-400, but personally I don't find it a problem.

They complement each other well, and I really don't think you'll stop using the 70-200 if you go for the longer lens. The 100-400 is a sharp lens, but still can't match the 70-200 for sharpness or bokeh, and of course it's a lot slower. I think you'll find yourself pulling out the 100-400 over the 70-200 only when you really need the extra reach.

Gary.

[4hero]

Hedgeman said:

and of course it's a lot slower

But still a hell of a lot faster than non-L glass. Never had an issue with focusing speed on the 100-400 to be honest, and I do LOTS of motorsport.

[Hedgeman]

4hero said:

Hedgeman said:

and of course it's a lot slower

But still a hell of a lot faster than non-L glass. Never had an issue with focusing speed on the 100-400 to be honest, and I do LOTS of motorsport.

Sorry, was referring to max aperture. Should have been more specific. I've no problem with the AF speed on the 100-400.

[Luke_Herts]

I have the 100-400mm and my friend has the 300mm. I find the 100-400m gives you the most as not only is it sharp very similar to the 300mm it gives you the option of reach etc instead of being fixed. The 100-400mm works well with a 1.4x on a monopod but unless pins are taped no AF. will post a few images in a bit.

[sa_20v]

I very occasionally need the range of a 400mm, but not enough to justify the price tag of the 100-400mm (although a superb bit of glass). I currently use the 70-200mm with 2x extender, a budget solution yielding reasonable results. The following link might be of interest:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php...

[cirks]

Thanks all. I'm probably leaning towards the 100-400 due to the flexibility it will give me. Bit of a pain that there won't be AF with the 1.4x without taping the pins. I still have a view doubts about the overlap because 1.4x * the 70-200 will give me 280 and therefore the 100-400 only gives me 120mm extra with AF.

One lens that might have been worth me putting in the list would be the Sigma 120-300f2.8 which has full AF up with a 2x. The constant 2.8 is nice. Anyone any experiences with this?

Price will (should!) play a part too... 100-400 is approx £800 2nd hand or £1050 new, the Sigma approx £1100 2nd hand.