Help Files Camera and Photography Forum

For general camera equipment and photography technique questions. Moderated by another view. Also see the Learn section, Camera Reviews, Photography Lessons, and Glossary of Photo Terms.
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Is that bokeh I smell?? 10kman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    34

    Teleconverter with zoom, or just go long??

    Have my eyes on a Canon EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM lens, due to the reach of it.

    However, I HAD my eyes on the Canon 70-200 f2.8L USM lens, for it's moderate reach, and the speed.

    On a 20D, both lenses are 1.6x longer, which is fine and dandy for the application.

    I like the speed of the f2.8 much better though, and was wondering, if it would be a photo-sin to throw a teleconverter on that lens, to get the reach out to the 100-400 area. Even losing a stop or 2, it'd still be faster than the 100-400 (right?).

    Will image quality suffer? I don't have any experience with Canon's TC's (or any for that matter), but I know there is a 1.4x, and a 2.0x that'll work with the L lenses.

    Thoughts?

    Thanks a bundle,

    10k

  2. #2
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649

    Re: Teleconverter with zoom, or just go long??

    Check this post in Viewfinder out: Lionheart's Test

  3. #3
    Seasoned Minolta Man Clemmie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Lincolnton, NC, USA
    Posts
    229

    Re: Teleconverter with zoom, or just go long??

    Whether it's construed as a 'photo-sin' depends on who you hang out with. I can certainly understand the need for length beyond 200, though.

    Teleconverters generally multiply both length and f/stop by the same ratio - so that 70-200/2.8, with a 2x converter, is gonna make a 140-400/5.6, basically. The quality, depending on how particular you are, probably ain't quite gonna match what the 100-400 might do at 5.6 - but the lensmaker's own 'matched' converters are usually better than aftermarket jobs, so the difference may well be acceptable.

  4. #4
    Is that bokeh I smell?? 10kman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    34

    Re: Teleconverter with zoom, or just go long??

    I was "googling" and found some side by side comparisons (the one above came out too, thanks).

    It looks like the non-converter route is *best* for image quality reasons. Not quite as sharp as the big, long lenses are, especially when cropping.

    I know I'd notice it too, I'm too picky for some stuff.

    Maybe down the road I'll swing a long lens just to feed the need, but I'm going to stick with the 70-200 for now, and just get used to walking a bit more.

    10k

  5. #5
    Erstwhile Vagabond armed with camera Lionheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,110

    Re: Teleconverter with zoom, or just go long??

    Quote Originally Posted by 10kman
    I was "googling" and found some side by side comparisons (the one above came out too, thanks).

    It looks like the non-converter route is *best* for image quality reasons. Not quite as sharp as the big, long lenses are, especially when cropping.

    I know I'd notice it too, I'm too picky for some stuff.

    Maybe down the road I'll swing a long lens just to feed the need, but I'm going to stick with the 70-200 for now, and just get used to walking a bit more.

    10k
    Believe me, you will not regret having the 70-200 f2.8L, in either IS or non IS trim. It is still by far the most used lens I have, although lately I've been madly in love with my 85 f1.8, 135 f2L, and 400 f5.6L primes. It is just absolutely razor sharp and fast, fast, fast. I've had the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS lens, and it is better optically than the 70-200 f2.8L when combined with the matching 2x II tc at the long end. Drawback to this lens is that it's a push pull design that gets front heavy at the long end. Both zooms are noticeably heavier than the 400 f5.6L, but the advantages of the zooms are,well, zoom zoom zoom ;)
    I initially bought the 100-400 IS lens as an immediate replacement for my 28-70 and 70-200 f2.8L's and 1.4x II, and 2.0x II TC's that were stolen almost three yrs ago, thinking that this range would fill most of my needs that the previous lenses had covered. But I really missed the cat-like reflexes of the 70-200 lens, and 2 Christmas' ago, I splurged on a Christmas present to myself and replaced ALMOST EVERY lens that had been stolen 3 years ago, essentially relegating the 100-400 to occasional duty, since it was simpler to pack the 1.4 and 2x converters with the 70-200 than to carry both zooms, and I rarely needed the 200-400 range. So the 100-400 got sold along with an almost brand new 1D to someone whose shooting style was a better fit for this lens than it was for me.

    Long story short, IF it were me, I would get the 70-200 lens first, much more versatile lens. Later, of course, you'll want to add long primes, but for now you will go a long ways just with the 70-200 lens.
    Seek the Son and the shadows fall behind you.

    slowly inching to 2000

    Mac's Rule, Windblows drools
    Friends don't let Friends use WindBlows XPee
    <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/schrackman/clover.jpg">Lionheart O'Canon Feel Free to Help

  6. #6
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649

    Re: Teleconverter with zoom, or just go long??

    Had that question myself a couple years ago - not thinking teleconverter actually, but between the Nikon versions of those two lenses. I wound up with the 80-200 and happy I did it. I'd always go for lens speed over IS or VR anyday. It's much more versatile.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. opitcal zoom vs megapixal
    By mikevet in forum Digital Cameras - General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-18-2004, 11:37 PM
  2. Optical vs Digital zoom???
    By mtbbrian in forum Digital Cameras - General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-27-2004, 11:37 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-27-2004, 09:01 PM
  4. Megapixels versus zoom
    By stepandr in forum Sports Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-30-2004, 03:12 PM
  5. Lense recommendation
    By edamon in forum Digital SLRs
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-05-2004, 07:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •