Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 20D + Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Recommend..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 4:01:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Okay, gang, first I asked advice on a telephoto zoom lens for my
sister-in-law's D70. Now I am asking for advice for my own Canon 20D. My
walk around lens is a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I am now looking to extend
my range with the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. How do you all feel
about this selection?

Thanks.

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 4:01:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Clyde Torres wrote:
> Okay, gang, first I asked advice on a telephoto zoom lens for my
> sister-in-law's D70. Now I am asking for advice for my own Canon 20D. My
> walk around lens is a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I am now looking to extend
> my range with the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. How do you all feel
> about this selection?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Clyde Torres

I have the 100-400 L IS lens and I love the flexibility of
the zoom lens.

But here is what I do not like:
the push pull pumps a lot of air (hold the camera end
up to your cheek without it attached to a camera and zoom
it in and out) when you zoom, and that means possible dust
on the sensor.

My 100-400 is soft at 400, though other people have reported
very sharp. There seems build variability so be sure to
try the exact one you will get before purchasing.

Because of the above 2 factors, I no longer use my 100-400
on digital bodies. Instead I've switched to a 300 mm
f/4 L IS, which is sharper, and with a 1.4x TC produces
very sharp images with autofocus at 420mm. This lens is
lighter and cheaper than the 100-400.

Here are some samples
300mm f/4:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.captive/we...

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.captive/we...

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.captive/we...

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.hawaii/web...

300mm f/4 + 1.4x:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.hawaii/web...

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.hawaii/web...

(in a few weeks I'll have birds and other wildlife from Australia
up, all taken with the 300 f/4 with and without a TC).

100-400 mm L IS zoom:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.colorado/w...

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.colorado/w...

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.colorado/w...

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.colorado/w...

The above 100-400 images make OK 8x10s, but look soft when printed larger.
The 300mm f/4 L images look sharper and print larger.

Roger
Home page: http://www.clarkvision.com
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 4:01:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:


> But here is what I do not like:
> the push pull pumps a lot of air (hold the camera end
> up to your cheek without it attached to a camera and zoom
> it in and out) when you zoom, and that means possible dust
> on the sensor.

Believe it or not.. I've found I have *less* dust on the sensor
since I started using the EF 100-400 IS on my 10D.

I attribute this to the fact the lens gives the interior of
the camera a good blowing out each time you use it. I've
observed the phenomena over a long period of time. (Over a year).

It's a great lens.. I use this lens for at least 50% of the
shots I take. (I shoot a lot of wildlife photos). The fixed
400 f/5.6 lens is a bit sharper than the 100-400, but it lacks
the *great* 4X zoom of the 100-400.

Zoom is important to me, especially for shooting wildlife when
I never know how close a subject will move to/away from me.

The push-pull does cause concern with some users, but I'm
completely comforable with it. I guess it just takes some
getting used to.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 5:09:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:e7j6e.28322$vd.802@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Okay, gang, first I asked advice on a telephoto zoom lens for my
> sister-in-law's D70. Now I am asking for advice for my own Canon 20D. My
> walk around lens is a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I am now looking to
> extend my range with the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. How do you
> all feel about this selection?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Clyde Torres
>

That's what I use...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 5:12:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:e7j6e.28322$vd.802@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Okay, gang, first I asked advice on a telephoto zoom lens for my
> sister-in-law's D70. Now I am asking for advice for my own Canon 20D. My
> walk around lens is a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I am now looking to extend
> my range with the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. How do you all feel
> about this selection?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Clyde Torres
>
>

Hang a five pound bag of sugar about a foot long on the front of your 20, and
decide if you can live with it.

Ok, it's only a little over 3 pounds, but the bag of sugar will give you a good
idea.

Note too that it's only 'gen-2' IS, whereas there are gen-3 IS lenses now
available [though few if any as good optically in that range].

Also, make sure you are happy with a 'push-pull' zoom. Yanking the lens with a
force counter to the hand trying to hold the camera can be a real turn-off to
some folks.

Finally, be prepared for folks to expect you to be handing out sample copies of
National Geographic.

On the plus side, the pix are nearly impossible to beat over the range....
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 5:16:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:12:56 GMT, "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
>news:e7j6e.28322$vd.802@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Okay, gang, first I asked advice on a telephoto zoom lens for my
>> sister-in-law's D70. Now I am asking for advice for my own Canon 20D. My
>> walk around lens is a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I am now looking to extend
>> my range with the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. How do you all feel
>> about this selection?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Clyde Torres
>>
>>
>
>Hang a five pound bag of sugar about a foot long on the front of your 20, and
>decide if you can live with it.

Depends on how much money I'm making while doing that. If the pay is
right I can live with it a long long time.
*****************************************************

"At ninety-six I had lived enough, that is all,
And passed to sweet repose.
What is this I hear of sorrow and weariness,
Anger, discontent and drooping hopes?
Degenerate sons and daughters,
Life is too strong for you --
It takes life to love Life."

"Lucinda Matlock"
_Spoon River Anthology_
Edgar Lee Masters (1869-1950)
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:49:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:4259DFB8.5020801@qwest.net...
> I have the 100-400 L IS lens and I love the flexibility of
> the zoom lens.
>
> But here is what I do not like:
> the push pull pumps a lot of air (hold the camera end
> up to your cheek without it attached to a camera and zoom
> it in and out) when you zoom, and that means possible dust
> on the sensor.
>
> My 100-400 is soft at 400, though other people have reported
> very sharp. There seems build variability so be sure to
> try the exact one you will get before purchasing.
>
> Because of the above 2 factors, I no longer use my 100-400
> on digital bodies. Instead I've switched to a 300 mm
> f/4 L IS, which is sharper, and with a 1.4x TC produces
> very sharp images with autofocus at 420mm. This lens is
> lighter and cheaper than the 100-400.
> (in a few weeks I'll have birds and other wildlife from Australia
> up, all taken with the 300 f/4 with and without a TC).
>
> The above 100-400 images make OK 8x10s, but look soft when printed larger.
> The 300mm f/4 L images look sharper and print larger.
>
> Roger
> Home page: http://www.clarkvision.com

Roger, if you were in my situation and had a 28-135mm Canon lens, what would
you by to extend my range in the telephoto range? What great lens does
Canon make that will take me out there to 2--+mm?

Thanks.

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:49:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:zAl6e.57194$Fz.15697@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
> in message news:4259DFB8.5020801@qwest.net...
>> I have the 100-400 L IS lens and I love the flexibility of
>> the zoom lens.
>>
>> But here is what I do not like:
>> the push pull pumps a lot of air (hold the camera end
>> up to your cheek without it attached to a camera and zoom
>> it in and out) when you zoom, and that means possible dust
>> on the sensor.
>>
>> My 100-400 is soft at 400, though other people have reported
>> very sharp. There seems build variability so be sure to
>> try the exact one you will get before purchasing.
>>
>> Because of the above 2 factors, I no longer use my 100-400
>> on digital bodies. Instead I've switched to a 300 mm
>> f/4 L IS, which is sharper, and with a 1.4x TC produces
>> very sharp images with autofocus at 420mm. This lens is
>> lighter and cheaper than the 100-400.
>> (in a few weeks I'll have birds and other wildlife from Australia
>> up, all taken with the 300 f/4 with and without a TC).
>>
>> The above 100-400 images make OK 8x10s, but look soft when printed
>> larger.
>> The 300mm f/4 L images look sharper and print larger.
>>
>> Roger
>> Home page: http://www.clarkvision.com
>
> Roger, if you were in my situation and had a 28-135mm Canon lens, what
> would you by to extend my range in the telephoto range? What great lens
> does Canon make that will take me out there to 2--+mm?
>
> Thanks.

Canon 70-210 2.8 IS L get's you there, and then some when used with the
Canon 1.4x extender.
This will get you to a high quality 280mm, which, with the 1.6 crop factor
gives you a field of view similar to 448mm compared with field of view (and
perceived enlargement) compared with 35mm film mount.
-Mark
(Again...see my other post to you)
(See my other post in this thread for more on the 70-200 2.8 IS).
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:49:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Clyde Torres wrote:

> Roger, if you were in my situation and had a 28-135mm Canon lens, what would
> you by to extend my range in the telephoto range? What great lens does
> Canon make that will take me out there to 2--+mm?

Clyde,
This should answer your question:
I just returned from a long trip to New Zealand and Australia.
I took:

24mm f/2.8
28-135 mm IS
180mm f/3.5 macro
300mm f/4 L IS
1.4 and 2x TCs

10D and 1D Mark II bodies.

For wildlife, the 300mm + 1.4x just gets in the ballpark
(I got many great images and will post them in a few weeks).

I used all the lenses. But if I had to return, I would
drop the 180mm for a 400 mm f/4 (too bad Canon's 400 mm
f/4 IS DO is so expensive). I would definitely
take my 500mm f/4 if it was mainly a photo trip
(this last trip was multi-purpose).

The 300 f/4 on a 1D mark II body also autofocuses at
f/8 with the 2x TC, which gives good image quality
and autofocus with IS at 600mm f/8.

Comments by others about the 70-200 mm f/2.8 are right
on. If you only want 200mm, then it is a great lens.
Which gives a sharper image: 70-200 L IS at 200 + 2x TC or
300 f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC? I do not know the answer,
but I suspect the 300 f/4 might be slightly better
because it is less magnification on a prime lens.

Roger
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:50:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:sak6e.2130$4v3.1426@trndny03...
> Hang a five pound bag of sugar about a foot long on the front of your 20,
> and
> decide if you can live with it.
>
> Ok, it's only a little over 3 pounds, but the bag of sugar will give you a
> good
> idea.
>
> Note too that it's only 'gen-2' IS, whereas there are gen-3 IS lenses now
> available [though few if any as good optically in that range].
>
> Also, make sure you are happy with a 'push-pull' zoom. Yanking the lens
> with a
> force counter to the hand trying to hold the camera can be a real turn-off
> to
> some folks.
>
> Finally, be prepared for folks to expect you to be handing out sample
> copies of
> National Geographic.
>
> On the plus side, the pix are nearly impossible to beat over the range....

Doesn't sound like I want the 100-400 after all. I should have looke at
this lens when I went to look at Nikkor lens this past weekend. What do you
recommend to extend my range out past the 28-135mm range?

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:50:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:XBl6e.28346$vd.12517@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:sak6e.2130$4v3.1426@trndny03...
>> Hang a five pound bag of sugar about a foot long on the front of your 20,
>> and
>> decide if you can live with it.
>>
>> Ok, it's only a little over 3 pounds, but the bag of sugar will give you
>> a good
>> idea.
>>
>> Note too that it's only 'gen-2' IS, whereas there are gen-3 IS lenses now
>> available [though few if any as good optically in that range].
>>
>> Also, make sure you are happy with a 'push-pull' zoom. Yanking the lens
>> with a
>> force counter to the hand trying to hold the camera can be a real
>> turn-off to
>> some folks.
>>
>> Finally, be prepared for folks to expect you to be handing out sample
>> copies of
>> National Geographic.
>>
>> On the plus side, the pix are nearly impossible to beat over the
>> range....
>
> Doesn't sound like I want the 100-400 after all. I should have looke at
> this lens when I went to look at Nikkor lens this past weekend. What do
> you recommend to extend my range out past the 28-135mm range?

Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS along with a Canon 1.4x extender to use when
necessary.
It is NOT push-pull like the 100-400, and is worth every penny and ounce it
costs and weighs.
The 70-200 is an incredible lens--arguably Canon's sharpest zoom. The
combination 2.8 aperture, IS, and the fantastic optics/build quality make it
a must-have in nearly anyone's arsenal if one can afford the $1500 or so it
costs.

And yes...I know that it over-laps the range of your 28-135, but don't let
that stop you.

I have long owned BOTH the 100-400 IS L and the 70-200 2.8 IS L, and loved
them both, BUT...I recently sold the 100-400 after noticing that I was
almost never carrying it...preferring to carry the other along with the
1.4x. I sold it in order to buy the Epson 4000 printer (another fantastic
piece of equipment...but that's another thread).

Once you get used to having 2.8 apertures at your disposal, you'll be
hard-pressed to smile with anything smaller.
This really is a nice rig, keeping in mind that even when you mount it with
the 1.4x extender, you're still able to shoot at f4. These larger apertures
are absolutely critical when shooting wildlife, or sports/action. Cranking
up the ISO only goes so far without compromising quality.

My other most-used lenses are the 28-135 IS, the 16-35 2.8 L, and the 100
2.8 Macro.

Take my advice here (70-200 2.8 IS), and I guarrantee you will be pleased.
-Mark
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:50:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Clyde Torres wrote:

>
> Doesn't sound like I want the 100-400 after all. I should have looke at
> this lens when I went to look at Nikkor lens this past weekend. What do you
> recommend to extend my range out past the 28-135mm range?

If you really want *quality* and magnification.. Look at the Canon
EF 500 f/4 or the EF 600 f/4
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:50:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:XBl6e.28346$vd.12517@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>

>
> Doesn't sound like I want the 100-400 after all. I should have looke at
> this lens when I went to look at Nikkor lens this past weekend. What do
> you recommend to extend my range out past the 28-135mm range?
>
> Clyde Torres
>

http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/cm23.html
100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:50:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> wrote in message
news:115jts79ri4sub4@news.supernews.com...
> Clyde Torres wrote:
>
>>
>> Doesn't sound like I want the 100-400 after all. I should have looke at
>> this lens when I went to look at Nikkor lens this past weekend. What do
>> you
>> recommend to extend my range out past the 28-135mm range?
>
> If you really want *quality* and magnification.. Look at the Canon
> EF 500 f/4 or the EF 600 f/4

He said, "to extend my system (from his 28-135 IS) into the 2--+mm range.

If he was looking to tripple or quadruple it...with no care for cost...then
perhaps that would be a nice choice.
:) 
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 7:59:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:e7j6e.28322$vd.802@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Okay, gang, first I asked advice on a telephoto zoom lens for my
> sister-in-law's D70. Now I am asking for advice for my own Canon 20D. My
> walk around lens is a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I am now looking to
extend
> my range with the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. How do you all
feel
> about this selection?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Clyde Torres


Have you thought about this lens?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?prod...
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:17:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:XBl6e.28346$vd.12517@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Doesn't sound like I want the 100-400 after all. I should have looke at
> this lens when I went to look at Nikkor lens this past weekend. What do you
> recommend to extend my range out past the 28-135mm range?
>
> Clyde Torres
>
>

Lenses and religion are a bit in the same category.

The 70-200 2.8 L is nearly $1700 [b&h], weighs even a little more than the
100-400, and is nearly 8" minimum length. The 300 L prime is sharp as a tack
and avoids the dust problems of a zoom, but it still weighs in at 2.6 pounds and
is nearly 9" long.

It kind of depends on what you want. For any of the above [the 100-400
included], if I were using it for any length of time, I would only be
comfortable using it with a support of some kind.

But if you are looking for a lens that you might be more likely to carry with
you and use hand-held for a longer period of time, you might consider the 70-300
4.5-5.6 DO IS. It's nowhere near an L lens, and it's quite quirky in certain
backlight situations and in rendering out of focus highlights, but weighing in
at just 1.6 pounds and substantially shorter than the aforementioned lenses, it
has super fast AF and the very latest IS. Depending on what you want, it might
be worth a look. But don't even consider it unless you read all the reviews
[google for "canon 70-300 do is"], like:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/

and better still, try one first and/or buy from somewhere that has a reasonable
return policy.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:17:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SamSez wrote:
> "Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
> news:XBl6e.28346$vd.12517@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> Doesn't sound like I want the 100-400 after all. I should have
>> looke at
>> this lens when I went to look at Nikkor lens this past weekend.
>> What do you recommend to extend my range out past the 28-135mm range?
>>
>> Clyde Torres
>>
>>
>
> Lenses and religion are a bit in the same category.
>
> The 70-200 2.8 L is nearly $1700 [b&h], weighs even a little more
> than the 100-400, and is nearly 8" minimum length. The 300 L prime
> is sharp as a tack and avoids the dust problems of a zoom, but it
> still weighs in at 2.6 pounds and is nearly 9" long.
>
> It kind of depends on what you want. For any of the above [the
> 100-400 included], if I were using it for any length of time, I would
> only be comfortable using it with a support of some kind.
>
> But if you are looking for a lens that you might be more likely to
> carry with you and use hand-held for a longer period of time, you
> might consider the 70-300
> 4.5-5.6 DO IS. It's nowhere near an L lens, and it's quite quirky in
> certain backlight situations and in rendering out of focus
> highlights, but weighing in at just 1.6 pounds and substantially
> shorter than the aforementioned lenses, it has super fast AF and the
> very latest IS. Depending on what you want, it might be worth a
> look. But don't even consider it unless you read all the reviews
> [google for "canon 70-300 do is"], like:
>
> http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/
>
> and better still, try one first and/or buy from somewhere that has a
> reasonable return policy.

Look at the 70-300mm examples and bird pictures here:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/4E5C1F3304B2BDB

I like the lens, and it is surely a fine one, but not at the quality
level Mark-squared is used to. I'm really thinking hard about going the
70-200 2.8L IS + extender route ...


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:05:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Comments by others about the 70-200 mm f/2.8 are right
> on. If you only want 200mm, then it is a great lens.

The generic problem with tele's is the same as WA's: once you start
down that road, you're always going to want more than you have.

> Which gives a sharper image: 70-200 L IS at 200 + 2x TC or
> 300 f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC? I do not know the answer,
> but I suspect the 300 f/4 might be slightly better
> because it is less magnification on a prime lens.

Personally, I'd bet on the latter too.

FWIW, I believe that I've seen a "400 vs 400" shoot-off of the
70-200+2x vs the 100-400, with the edge going to the latter, which
makes sense from the concept of "add on" vs. purpose-built.

I don't recall if I've seen a similar conceptual shoot-off that
compares the 70-200+1.4x to any of Canon's 75-300's (std, IS, DO IS).
I'd be inclined to speculate that the biggest/heaviest/costliest would
most likely win, but again, there's the niggling factor of the lens's
optical modification from a Teleconverter again, even if the 70-200 is
a clearly superior starting point...its akin to putting a boat trailer
behind a Porsche :-)


-hh
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 9:13:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1113231905.071595.238670@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>> Comments by others about the 70-200 mm f/2.8 are right
>> on. If you only want 200mm, then it is a great lens.
>
> The generic problem with tele's is the same as WA's: once you start
> down that road, you're always going to want more than you have.
>
>> Which gives a sharper image: 70-200 L IS at 200 + 2x TC or
>> 300 f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC? I do not know the answer,
>> but I suspect the 300 f/4 might be slightly better
>> because it is less magnification on a prime lens.
>
> Personally, I'd bet on the latter too.
>
> FWIW, I believe that I've seen a "400 vs 400" shoot-off of the
> 70-200+2x vs the 100-400, with the edge going to the latter, which
> makes sense from the concept of "add on" vs. purpose-built.
>
> I don't recall if I've seen a similar conceptual shoot-off that
> compares the 70-200+1.4x to any of Canon's 75-300's (std, IS, DO IS).
> I'd be inclined to speculate that the biggest/heaviest/costliest would
> most likely win, but again, there's the niggling factor of the lens's
> optical modification from a Teleconverter again, even if the 70-200 is
> a clearly superior starting point...its akin to putting a boat trailer
> behind a Porsche :-)

I would agree that the 70-200 with 2x doesn't quite match the naked 100-400.
The case is different with the 1.4x though.
In my personal experience, the 70-200/1.4x best the 100-400
still...AND...it's still capable of a full stop more light.
I have not personally compare it with the 70-300 DO.
The 1.4x contains an excellent choice for the 70-200 because it frankly
doesn't take much optical tweaking to grab the extra 40% enlargement. 100%
(2x) is another story.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:00:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:G5m6e.690$xE2.268@fed1read04...
> Canon 70-210 2.8 IS L get's you there, and then some when used with the
> Canon 1.4x extender.
> This will get you to a high quality 280mm, which, with the 1.6 crop factor
> gives you a field of view similar to 448mm compared with field of view
> (and perceived enlargement) compared with 35mm film mount.
> -Mark
> (Again...see my other post to you)
> (See my other post in this thread for more on the 70-200 2.8 IS).


Mark, you make a good point with the 70-200m IS L and the 1.4x extender.
Seems like I want extremely good optical quality, this is the lens to get.

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:00:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:D YF6e.36821$vd.20434@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:G5m6e.690$xE2.268@fed1read04...
>> Canon 70-210 2.8 IS L get's you there, and then some when used with the
>> Canon 1.4x extender.
>> This will get you to a high quality 280mm, which, with the 1.6 crop
>> factor gives you a field of view similar to 448mm compared with field of
>> view (and perceived enlargement) compared with 35mm film mount.
>> -Mark
>> (Again...see my other post to you)
>> (See my other post in this thread for more on the 70-200 2.8 IS).
>
>
> Mark, you make a good point with the 70-200m IS L and the 1.4x extender.
> Seems like I want extremely good optical quality, this is the lens to get.
>
> Clyde Torres

I don't know your style of use or the emphasis you place on the
weight/lightness of your system... If you have some sort of overt limiting
factor that makes weight a real issue, there is no denying that it's not a
light-weight.

BUT... I have to tell you that it rarely, if ever, even occurs to me. This
particular lens is ALWAYS in my bag--no matter what. I use a Lowe-Pro Orion
bag, which is a hip bag. My standard carrying set up includes the 16-35 2.8
L, the 1.4x extender, 70-20 2.8 IS L, and the 28-135 IS which is usually
mounted on my camera (either that, or the wide lens)...along with a 550EX,
timer remote cable release, vertical grip, and various other doodads
(batteries, memory cards, portable hard-drive storage device, etc.). All of
this fits within the Orion, and is quite comfortable to carry, since it sits
on your hip/torso area.

I am mentioning this only because much has been made about the weight of
lenses in this thread. It is my contention that many folks tend to miss a
tremendous set of optics in the name of perhaps one pound. In the scheme of
what we carry, it's really not a big deal. Even more surprisingly, when one
gets used to teh more substantial Canon L tele lenses, it becomes strange to
hold lesser weighted teles. Personally I find that the weight acts as a
stabilizer of sorts, simply due to the natural stability from heavier
objects in general. Hand jitters are reduced. Try holding a pencil in your
hand without notice tiny movements... -Now try it with a two pound object.
You'll find that the "jitters" are nearly gone, simply because it takes more
than jitters to move the object.

I love the feel of my DSLR when the heavier lens is mounted now. It feels
secure and solid as a rock in terms of stability and build quality. If it
becomes truly cumbersome, remember that the 70-200 (and the 100-400, for
that matter) come equipped with a tripod mounting ring on the lens itself.
Mount a monopod to this, and you can stand longer with it aimed at your
subject than a lighter lens without one! :) 

If you do end up going with L teles, I would also recommend that at some
point you consider the vertical grip for your 20D. Not only will it create
a more balanced feel, but you'll gain real functionality and additional
battery life (which is already good).

Just another 4 cents or so...
:) 
-Mark
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:00:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:D YF6e.36821$vd.20434@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:G5m6e.690$xE2.268@fed1read04...
>> Canon 70-210 2.8 IS L get's you there, and then some when used with the
>> Canon 1.4x extender.
>> This will get you to a high quality 280mm, which, with the 1.6 crop
>> factor gives you a field of view similar to 448mm compared with field of
>> view (and perceived enlargement) compared with 35mm film mount.
>> -Mark
>> (Again...see my other post to you)
>> (See my other post in this thread for more on the 70-200 2.8 IS).
>
>
> Mark, you make a good point with the 70-200m IS L and the 1.4x extender.
> Seems like I want extremely good optical quality, this is the lens to get.
>
> Clyde Torres
>
Not only that, but, at the end of the day, you have a 70-200 f2.8, the
100-400 f4.5-5.6 can't get to 70mm, and it's only an f4.5 at 100mm, f5 or so
by 200mm.
Frankly, if I had it to do over, that's what I'd do, rather than buy a
100-400 IS, but the IS version of the 70-200 wasn't in production then.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:03:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:425A1506.5040004@qwest.net...
> Clyde Torres wrote:
>
>> Roger, if you were in my situation and had a 28-135mm Canon lens, what
>> would you by to extend my range in the telephoto range? What great lens
>> does Canon make that will take me out there to 2--+mm?
>
> Clyde,
> This should answer your question:
> I just returned from a long trip to New Zealand and Australia.
> I took:
>
> 24mm f/2.8
> 28-135 mm IS
> 180mm f/3.5 macro
> 300mm f/4 L IS
> 1.4 and 2x TCs
>
> 10D and 1D Mark II bodies.
>
> For wildlife, the 300mm + 1.4x just gets in the ballpark
> (I got many great images and will post them in a few weeks).
>
> I used all the lenses. But if I had to return, I would
> drop the 180mm for a 400 mm f/4 (too bad Canon's 400 mm
> f/4 IS DO is so expensive). I would definitely
> take my 500mm f/4 if it was mainly a photo trip
> (this last trip was multi-purpose).
>
> The 300 f/4 on a 1D mark II body also autofocuses at
> f/8 with the 2x TC, which gives good image quality
> and autofocus with IS at 600mm f/8.
>
> Comments by others about the 70-200 mm f/2.8 are right
> on. If you only want 200mm, then it is a great lens.
> Which gives a sharper image: 70-200 L IS at 200 + 2x TC or
> 300 f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC? I do not know the answer,
> but I suspect the 300 f/4 might be slightly better
> because it is less magnification on a prime lens.
>
> Roger


Roger, I am jealous that you just got back from Down Under, but I am sure
you had a great time!

I wish I cold go with some of those prime lenses that you mention above, but
I really want a zoom. The 70-200mm L IS USM sounds like a good lens,
especially wth the 1.4x extener. I am just gonna have to get used to the
weight and bulk. I'm not 100% sure yet, but I am going to the photo shop
one more time to look at these lenses. I wish I could go to B&H and look at
them there for the best selection.

Clyde Torres

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 4:02:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:e7j6e.28322$vd.802@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Okay, gang, first I asked advice on a telephoto zoom lens for my
> sister-in-law's D70. Now I am asking for advice for my own Canon 20D. My
> walk around lens is a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I am now looking to
> extend my range with the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. How do you
> all feel about this selection?
>


Well you've received a lot of advice on this one!!! ;-) I have both lenses
and love them both. Since I bought the 100-400 my smaller and lighter
(cheap) 70-300 has stayed in the bag and I'm thinking of removing it
altogether. I find myself using the two lenses exclusively anymore and to
be honest I use the 100-400 more then my 28-135. I use it so often I'm
seriously thinking about a second body so I can leave it permanently
mounted.

Weight: The lens is heavy but I don't have any problems holding it or
caring it around.

Push Pull Zoom: I've become completely comfortable with the push pull zoom.

Focus: I've read a lot about the lens being soft at 400mm. I've still
managed to get some great
results.

Dust: To early for me to judge yet. At this moment I do have one spec on my
sensor but I can't tell you if it's a result of the lens or the fact that I
swap lenses often.

Performance: As I said above, I'm very happy with the lens. The 70-200 and
400 prime maybe better performers, but for my
use and IMHO you can't beet the zoom range of the 100-400.

Here are a few samples.
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/100400


--

Rob
!