100-400 finely
- Thread starter bar
- Start date
aberg12012
New member
Nice ring tails 
Bar, what made you get that particular lens? The reason I'm asking is because I have been debating between two lenses. The 100-400 and the 70-200 2.8 with the used of a 1.4x TC and/ or a 2x TC. I'm fully aware of aperture decrease which is fine, but I have read a lot of mixed reviews as to how much image degredation I will get with the 2x TC to get a focal lenght of 400. Bar, did you try this combination before making your decision on the 100-400 L lens? Nice shots by the way.
aberg12012
New member
As far as Nikon mounts... (Cannon should be a similar story.)
I tried the 80-400 VR (f/4.5-5.6) about a year ago when I was shopping for the 70-200 VR (f/2.8). I guess it depends on what you need. If you need something slow, with better reach, the 80-400 would work fine. But it focuses slow, dosn't have a constant aperture, and telescopes in/out which means it's going to be sucking dust and dirt into the inner glass. The 70-200 on the other hand, focuses lighting fast, has a wonderful fast constant aperture, and dosn't telescope in and out so it's completely sealed. Plus, if I need to go out to 400mm, I can slap a 2x converter on, and have the same f/5.6 that the 80-400 has at 400mm.
I would assume the same can be applied to the Cannon IS lenses... sealed, constant ap. lense that focuses lighting fast, or a non-sealed telescoping lense that focuses a little slower, but has more reach.
I tried the 80-400 VR (f/4.5-5.6) about a year ago when I was shopping for the 70-200 VR (f/2.8). I guess it depends on what you need. If you need something slow, with better reach, the 80-400 would work fine. But it focuses slow, dosn't have a constant aperture, and telescopes in/out which means it's going to be sucking dust and dirt into the inner glass. The 70-200 on the other hand, focuses lighting fast, has a wonderful fast constant aperture, and dosn't telescope in and out so it's completely sealed. Plus, if I need to go out to 400mm, I can slap a 2x converter on, and have the same f/5.6 that the 80-400 has at 400mm.
I would assume the same can be applied to the Cannon IS lenses... sealed, constant ap. lense that focuses lighting fast, or a non-sealed telescoping lense that focuses a little slower, but has more reach.
aberg12012
New member
I have not personally tried the 2x... so I can't say for sure. But I would bet that any reports of severe image quality/sharpness loss is mostly "measurebating." I would not be worried about it, because the 70-200 is so sharp to begin with, it's probably still sharper with a 2x TC than the 80-400 VR. But of coarse, I can't back that up with actuall experience...
As for the 200-400 VR... yikes! Is 5 grand really worth that? For five grand, I'll walk my fat butt a little closer. :lol:
As for the 200-400 VR... yikes! Is 5 grand really worth that?
For five grand, I'll walk my fat butt a little closer. :lol:
