Need some 'L' help!
Discussion
A month or so I got myself a 200 2.8 L to go with a 1D MK2N body, impressed so far with the quality, but I've been left wanting more reach! I was at Silverstone a couple of weeks back for the MotoGP practice, there were a couple of places where the 200mm was fine, but others where that extra reach would have been handy.
The silverstone classic is coming up in a month and I'd like to be be a bit better prepared!
I've narrowed it down to the following
300mm F4L
400mm F5.6L
100mm - 400mm L
I prefer primes, I'm hoping to build a collection up....I also like faster glass, so the 300 F4 is winning so far, but it's hard to ignore the 100-400mm range! I'd be looking at new, as all 3 seem to be about the same (although it's hard to find somewhere that sell sthe 400).
Any thoughts???
Thanks.
The silverstone classic is coming up in a month and I'd like to be be a bit better prepared!
I've narrowed it down to the following
300mm F4L
400mm F5.6L
100mm - 400mm L
I prefer primes, I'm hoping to build a collection up....I also like faster glass, so the 300 F4 is winning so far, but it's hard to ignore the 100-400mm range! I'd be looking at new, as all 3 seem to be about the same (although it's hard to find somewhere that sell sthe 400).
Any thoughts???
Thanks.
I have a 400/5.6L myself, have used the 300/4IS L and 100-400L plenty.
400 has no IS or weather sealing
300 has IS and weather sealing
100-400 has an OLD IS system and no weather sealing.
The primes have better IQ than the zoom, centre sharpness isnt that far ahead of a decent 100-400L but off centre is better. But IMO and with my experience the 100-400L is plenty good enough for pure sharpness.
100-400L is slower to focus, heavier and has poorer, busier bokeh than either of the primes. Its also very very very versatile.
The primes should be about 2/3rds to 3/4 the price of the zoom.
IMO the 100-400L is exceptional with its range and overall IQ, for a general sports/wildlife lens.
The primes are obviously better but much less versatile.
Note you can always add teleconvertors to your 200/2.8, they do slow AF and hit IQ a bit, but a 1.4 would be very usable with the 200.
Also look for used lenses, both the primes are near unbreakable and very simple, I'd be wary of older 100-400L's
400 has no IS or weather sealing
300 has IS and weather sealing
100-400 has an OLD IS system and no weather sealing.
The primes have better IQ than the zoom, centre sharpness isnt that far ahead of a decent 100-400L but off centre is better. But IMO and with my experience the 100-400L is plenty good enough for pure sharpness.
100-400L is slower to focus, heavier and has poorer, busier bokeh than either of the primes. Its also very very very versatile.
The primes should be about 2/3rds to 3/4 the price of the zoom.
IMO the 100-400L is exceptional with its range and overall IQ, for a general sports/wildlife lens.
The primes are obviously better but much less versatile.
Note you can always add teleconvertors to your 200/2.8, they do slow AF and hit IQ a bit, but a 1.4 would be very usable with the 200.
Also look for used lenses, both the primes are near unbreakable and very simple, I'd be wary of older 100-400L's
RobDickinson said:
I have a 400/5.6L myself, have used the 300/4IS L and 100-400L plenty.
400 has no IS or weather sealing
300 has IS and weather sealing
100-400 has an OLD IS system and no weather sealing.
The primes have better IQ than the zoom, centre sharpness isnt that far ahead of a decent 100-400L but off centre is better. But IMO and with my experience the 100-400L is plenty good enough for pure sharpness.
100-400L is slower to focus, heavier and has poorer, busier bokeh than either of the primes. Its also very very very versatile.
The primes should be about 2/3rds to 3/4 the price of the zoom.
IMO the 100-400L is exceptional with its range and overall IQ, for a general sports/wildlife lens.
The primes are obviously better but much less versatile.
Note you can always add teleconvertors to your 200/2.8, they do slow AF and hit IQ a bit, but a 1.4 would be very usable with the 200.
Also look for used lenses, both the primes are near unbreakable and very simple, I'd be wary of older 100-400L's
I thought about a 1.4 teleconverter, suppose I still am!400 has no IS or weather sealing
300 has IS and weather sealing
100-400 has an OLD IS system and no weather sealing.
The primes have better IQ than the zoom, centre sharpness isnt that far ahead of a decent 100-400L but off centre is better. But IMO and with my experience the 100-400L is plenty good enough for pure sharpness.
100-400L is slower to focus, heavier and has poorer, busier bokeh than either of the primes. Its also very very very versatile.
The primes should be about 2/3rds to 3/4 the price of the zoom.
IMO the 100-400L is exceptional with its range and overall IQ, for a general sports/wildlife lens.
The primes are obviously better but much less versatile.
Note you can always add teleconvertors to your 200/2.8, they do slow AF and hit IQ a bit, but a 1.4 would be very usable with the 200.
Also look for used lenses, both the primes are near unbreakable and very simple, I'd be wary of older 100-400L's
The thinking was that I could go for the 400, and use the teleconverter with the 200 to achieve a semi fast '300'! Not sure if that logic is correct though.
I'd like new really, all my stuff recently has been second hand, and I'm not knocking it at all, I just fancy being the first person to open the box my next lens is in!
From the 400/2.8mkII MTF charts the 2.0tcIII is optically better than the 1.4!?
AF (on that lens) still takes a 50% hit but from what I have seen the mkII and the mkIII tc give about as good IQ as the 100-400L at 400/5.6
I think the 70-200 and 2.0tc together cost more than the 100-400L tho.
AF (on that lens) still takes a 50% hit but from what I have seen the mkII and the mkIII tc give about as good IQ as the 100-400L at 400/5.6
I think the 70-200 and 2.0tc together cost more than the 100-400L tho.
Why not use 1.4x convertor with 200 F2.8??
I use this combo quite a bit IQ is still excellent at full aperture F4.
If you buy 300mm F4 you only gain 20mm length over 200+1.4x convertor.
Id be wary of 100-400, for sure some are quite OK for sharpness, most are very poor, until you buy one you won't know whether your copy is good or bad.
So chepaest option is a 1.4x convertor and your 200F2.8
Hope this helps
Mal
I use this combo quite a bit IQ is still excellent at full aperture F4.
If you buy 300mm F4 you only gain 20mm length over 200+1.4x convertor.
Id be wary of 100-400, for sure some are quite OK for sharpness, most are very poor, until you buy one you won't know whether your copy is good or bad.
So chepaest option is a 1.4x convertor and your 200F2.8
Hope this helps
Mal
S47 said:
Why not use 1.4x convertor with 200 F2.8??
I use this combo quite a bit IQ is still excellent at full aperture F4.
If you buy 300mm F4 you only gain 20mm length over 200+1.4x convertor.
Id be wary of 100-400, for sure some are quite OK for sharpness, most are very poor, until you buy one you won't know whether your copy is good or bad.
So chepaest option is a 1.4x convertor and your 200F2.8
Hope this helps
Mal
Would I be right in thinking that AF will stick work with a 1 series body?I use this combo quite a bit IQ is still excellent at full aperture F4.
If you buy 300mm F4 you only gain 20mm length over 200+1.4x convertor.
Id be wary of 100-400, for sure some are quite OK for sharpness, most are very poor, until you buy one you won't know whether your copy is good or bad.
So chepaest option is a 1.4x convertor and your 200F2.8
Hope this helps
Mal
With the 200/2.8? Yes.
1.4 TC adds 1 stop, 2.0tc adds 2 stops.
1 series can autofocus with an f8 lens (center point only tho).
Other(canons) can only focus with an f5.6 or faster lens.
You can add the 1.4 (to f4) or the 2.0 (to f5.6) or both (f8) and it will still focus on a 1 series.
(slowly, and not in low light).
1.4 TC adds 1 stop, 2.0tc adds 2 stops.
1 series can autofocus with an f8 lens (center point only tho).
Other(canons) can only focus with an f5.6 or faster lens.
You can add the 1.4 (to f4) or the 2.0 (to f5.6) or both (f8) and it will still focus on a 1 series.
(slowly, and not in low light).
RobDickinson said:
400 has no IS or weather sealing
300 has IS and weather sealing
100-400 has an OLD IS system and no weather sealing.
The 300 f4 also has old IS - it was the first L IS lens introduced I think, must have had mine 12 years or more. Doesn't have the rubber seals either. Nice and sharp, not too heavy, a new version is rumoured to be coming soon. By all accounts the 400mm 5.6 is ace if you want more length.300 has IS and weather sealing
100-400 has an OLD IS system and no weather sealing.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff