[dcstep]

Originally Posted by remmib

The surf pics above is shot with a 70-200 and 2x TC.

Nice.

Yeah, mine's with the 70-200mm f/4L IS plus the 1.4x TC on a 7D.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Nice.

Yeah, mine's with the 70-200mm f/4L IS plus the 1.4x TC on a 7D.

So the IS version will work with the 1.4x TC, eh?

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

So the IS version will work with the 1.4x TC, eh?

Oh yeah, the IS works great with and without the TC. I depend on the IS relatively often.

Here we are with the TC on the 70-200mm at ISO 6400 (pre dawn) at 1/125 second (slow for 280mm) handheld with the 5D MkII:


Very handsome bull elk by dcstep, on Flickr

[The1]

Originally Posted by remmib

The surf pics above is shot with a 70-200 and 2x TC.

yes, but he was talking about a 100-400mm and that's why that post took place

[UdubBadger]

Yeah I figured if I'm gonna get the 2x converter for my 70-200 f4 is at home. But it would also be fun to have the 100-400 and be able to make it a 200-800. The 2x converter makes it an f/5.6 when used anyway. I would probably like to upgrade my 70-200 to the 2.8 IS first though. Such a baller lens, despite the weight.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

Yeah I figured if I'm gonna get the 2x converter for my 70-200 f4 is at home. But it would also be fun to have the 100-400 and be able to make it a 200-800. The 2x converter makes it an f/5.6 when used anyway. I would probably like to upgrade my 70-200 to the 2.8 IS first though. Such a baller lens, despite the weight.

Keep in mind that you lose AF if you put the 2x TC on the f/4, unless you have a 1-series body. The 2x converter adds 2-stops, so you won't get a f/5.6 unless you have a f/2.8 to begin with.

[UdubBadger]

ah, ok. That makes a bit more sense. So I will need to at least swap f/4 for a 2.8 to get the f/5.6 with the 2x.

or i can just keep the f/4 and get the 100-400.

thoughts?

[The1]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

ah, ok. That makes a bit more sense. So I will need to at least swap f/4 for a 2.8 to get the f/5.6 with the 2x.

or i can just keep the f/4 and get the 100-400.

thoughts?

i found one article a long time ago that said the 100-400 was sharper then the 2.8 with a 2xTC attached. but i only came across that once.

the range of the 100-400 is nice to have. although the 70-200 really isn't far off with the 2x. it's really a matter of choice. I just recommend that if you do go for the 2.8 and a 2x, you'll have to stop down a few just to get the outside edges sharper, where the 100-400, the 5.6 is fairly sharp all the way across. which really is a downfall to the TCs.

hope that made sense, it seems like i jumped around a bit to me.

[UdubBadger]

hahaha, yeah it makes sense. maybe the 2.8 is a better choice though since I could run it on my 40D and use the 1.6x crop to give me some more zoom on it.

Would that work with the 1.4x converter? Does it change the f stops like the 2x?

[The1]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

hahaha, yeah it makes sense. maybe the 2.8 is a better choice though since I could run it on my 40D and use the 1.6x crop to give me some more zoom on it.

Would that work with the 1.4x converter? Does it change the f stops like the 2x?

yes it does, but nowhere near as drastic.

there is still some quality drop at the edges as a result of it, but not as bad as the 2x. so you might stop down a little just to tidy it up but not as much as you might with the 2x

but also remember, a 200mm is still a 200 mm on a crop or a full frame, it's
just the image is cropped. It's easy to forget i find.

your F stop would be a 4 constant, which isn't bad to play with compared to a 5.6. but the other way to look at it is, even with the furthest reaches of the 100-400, you're still shooting a 5.6, but at least at 100, it's about an f4, and still able to do that full zoom range and still keep great sharpness.

the big winner in my eyes though is the ability to shoot between 70-200 at f2.8. anything after that is just bonus that you want to play with. I find you have to work with the 70-200 F4 to get nice bukah, where the 2.8 will do it with almost any picture with minimal effort. I think that's where the money really is in the long run. Unless you get into wildlife. then i'd just say the 100-400, which you could put a 1.4 tc on and run on most cameras.

the 100-400 is the cheapest super tele your next option is start buying primes which will get into the several thousand range. So, before buying with passion, assess what your uses for it will be and go by that. If all you're doing is portrait work and never venturing into the woods, forget about the 100-400, it will be useless for you.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

ah, ok. That makes a bit more sense. So I will need to at least swap f/4 for a 2.8 to get the f/5.6 with the 2x.

or i can just keep the f/4 and get the 100-400.

thoughts?

This might help you: [linky]

The 100-400mm is sharper at 400mm f/5.6 than the 70-200mm at 400mm with a 2.0x TC. That being said, unless you constantly shooting for wildlife (like Dave), I recommend the 70-200mm since it's much more versatile (especially on a full-frame). You can use it for portraits, etc.

The only reason I didn't get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is because it's insanely pricey compared to the 70-200 f/4 IS, and has essentially the same sharpness. I also didn't need the extra stop for nearly twice the price and weight.

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

hahaha, yeah it makes sense. maybe the 2.8 is a better choice though since I could run it on my 40D and use the 1.6x crop to give me some more zoom on it.

Would that work with the 1.4x converter? Does it change the f stops like the 2x?

Yes. With the 1.4x TC you lose 1-stop, and with the 2.0x TC you lose 2 stops. You'r aperture needs to be at least as fast as f/5.6 for AF to work on your non-1 bodies. The 1-bodies can work with an aperture at least as fast as f/8. That's why you can use a 100-400mm with a 2.0x TC with a 1D or 1Ds and still retain AF and have the cheapest 800-1040mm equivalent focal length.

By the way, another important thing to note is that a 1.4x TC results in a 25% decrease in AF speed, and a 2.0x TC results in a 50% decrease in AF speed. Usually people don't realize that when buying TCs.

Originally Posted by The1

but also remember, a 200mm is still a 200 mm on a crop or a full frame, it's just the image is cropped. It's easy to forget i find.

Although that's true, you have to have a reference system, and that is the 35mm equivalent focal length. So, a 200mm lens on an APS-C is essentially 320mm equivalent. It's assumed to be cropped.

[UdubBadger]

ah ok. well I guess my thoughts were with the 100-400 i could still get up to 800 if I wanted to for as little $ needed (with a 2xTC). I honestly don't know when I would shoot that length other than maybe a few sporting events a year. It would be fun to have but yes the 2.8 IS 70-200 would be the more logical choice because I could use it on a regular basis with the lower aperture.

eh, i'll give it some thought when I get back home from Hawaii. Sadly, I really only used my camera one day so far. I am having too much fun enjoying everything rather than shooting everything. Maybe I'll just have to come back again soon to shoot only (without the wife).

[Chewy734]

well, if you decide on the 100-400mm f/4L IS, apparently Canon is shipping me one that I'll be returning to them... so, if you want one, it's yours.

[UdubBadger]

oh nice, how much?

wait... they make a 100-400 F4 IS? or did you mean the 70-200?

[Bobble]

North shore does not break too epic in the summer especially Pipe line and Sunset. Try checking around the corners at Velzy or down southside at Haleiwa. Good thing is no traffic during the summer as big winter swells tend to have trafiic backing up for miles.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by Bobble

North shore does not break too epic in the summer especially Pipe line and Sunset. Try checking around the corners at Velzy or down southside at Haleiwa. Good thing is no traffic during the summer as big winter swells tend to have trafiic backing up for miles.

yeah already found that out. Pipe was at least breaking closer to shore so that helped but not epic by any means. I just turned in my rental car today so no more trips up

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

well, if you decide on the 100-400mm f/4L IS, apparently Canon is shipping me one that I'll be returning to them... so, if you want one, it's yours.

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

oh nice, how much?

wait... they make a 100-400 F4 IS? or did you mean the 70-200?

Now that I think about it, if I do a 70-200 2.8 on my 40D (1.6x crop ratio) thats a 280mm equivalent still shooting @f/2.8. Then if I do a 1.4xTC I only lose 1 stop but my range goes up to 448mm and ends up being faster and longer than the f/2.8 losing 2 stops with the 2xTC @400mm.

Does that math make sense or am I not multiplying correctly?

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

oh nice, how much?

wait... they make a 100-400 F4 IS? or did you mean the 70-200?

Oops. I meant the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

Now that I think about it, if I do a 70-200 2.8 on my 40D (1.6x crop ratio) thats a 280mm equivalent still shooting @f/2.8. Then if I do a 1.4xTC I only lose 1 stop but my range goes up to 448mm and ends up being faster and longer than the f/2.8 losing 2 stops with the 2xTC @400mm.

Does that math make sense or am I not multiplying correctly?

The latter.

The 70-200 f/2.8 on my 40D gives you 200*1.6 = 320mm equivalent at f/2.8.
If you do the 1.4x TC, then on your 40D, you'll have 320*1.4 = 448mm equivalent at f/4.

If you use the 2x TC on your 5DM2 with that lens, you'll get 400mm at f/5.6.

Is that what you are trying to compare?

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Oops. I meant the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.



The latter.

The 70-200 f/2.8 on my 40D gives you 200*1.6 = 320mm equivalent at f/2.8.
If you do the 1.4x TC, then on your 40D, you'll have 320*1.4 = 448mm equivalent at f/4.

If you use the 2x TC on your 5DM2 with that lens, you'll get 400mm at f/5.6.

Is that what you are trying to compare?

don't forget it would be 640mm on a crop body.... sort of

it's a lot of zoom on a crop body. You will never really need any more then that unless you do 2-3 trecks into the woods a week like Dave does.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Oops. I meant the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.



The latter.

The 70-200 f/2.8 on my 40D gives you 200*1.6 = 320mm equivalent at f/2.8.
If you do the 1.4x TC, then on your 40D, you'll have 320*1.4 = 448mm equivalent at f/4.

If you use the 2x TC on your 5DM2 with that lens, you'll get 400mm at f/5.6.

Is that what you are trying to compare?

yeah thats right. I think thats what I'm gonna try to do the 1.4x and 70-200 2.8 IS.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by The1

don't forget it would be 640mm on a crop body.... sort of

it's a lot of zoom on a crop body. You will never really need any more then that unless you do 2-3 trecks into the woods a week like Dave does.

yeah like I said wouldn't need it that long for stuff other than a few trips to the ball park or if I ever get my wish granted of siting on the field at a bears game.

[Chewy734]

Badger, I think you have telephoto mixed up with macro, if you're planning on taking pics of your... self.