Canon 70-300L IS upgrade?

[Jan-Jasinski]

What's the obsession with you suggesting 1.4x TC's? they were invented for a reason, and they are not usually used with the 100-400, 28-300, 70-300, 35-350 for a simple reason. They work great with any flavor of the 70-200 and the 300, 400, 500mm primes, but NOT with those other lenses unless you want to give up a great AF.

Sorry, I find them fun, super zoom....

[Felipe Garcia]

Yes, but they were not really to be designed for that, and they're a bit useless for what we use them. And for a super zoom, the Sigma 50-500 is way better than a 100-400 with a 1.4x, and cheaper for that matter. Now, the 200-400 f4 prototype is a whole different story

I'm days away from buying a manual focus SLR, to be used with static objects. There's no way I'd use that for shooting the Thunderbirds (yeah, try using manual or slow focus with a plane that is on your viewfinder for 1/2 second).

Seriously, every single post of you in this thread has mentioned a 1.4x TC in some way or another, even after other people have repeatedly mentioned that it's nearly useless. I think the AF won't suffer from any limitations with a 1D body, but that's a $5000 camera.

And the 50-500 does not compare to the quality? I'm pretty sure that a 100-400 with a TC wouldn't be any better.

[Rick C]

Guys,
Thanks for all the replies. Looking forward to putting the lens to a real test, hopefully this weekend. Will keep you informed of results and hopefully some will appear on JP.Net.
Regards, Rick

[ecapdeville]

I normally use my 1D Mark II with the 70-200 2.8 + 1.4X and its great... I tried this same combination with my new 7D and was great too, so I wont rule out the use of it...

[B7772ADL]

I normally use my 1D Mark II with the 70-200 2.8 + 1.4X and its great... I tried this same combination with my new 7D and was great too, so I wont rule out the use of it...

Oh don't get me wrong, if the 1.4x is used correctly it's superb, as I too use a 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4x. It's when it's used with other lenses that things start to fall apart in terms of IQ and AF. The way I'm seeing it here is that Jan's busy telling us how great the 1.4x is with a 100-400 when in actual fact the 100-400 becomes a beast to use and you really have to slow down alot and think hard to get decent results from it, largely using manual AF or if you have AF, it's very hit and miss and slow. It's really not ideal, but then again 13 yr old photographers seem to know best these days!

[Jan-Jasinski]

Yes, but they were not really to be designed for that, and they're a bit useless for what we use them. And for a super zoom, the Sigma 50-500 is way better than a 100-400 with a 1.4x, and cheaper for that matter. Now, the 200-400 f4 prototype is a whole different story

I'm days away from buying a manual focus SLR, to be used with static objects. There's no way I'd use that for shooting the Thunderbirds (yeah, try using manual or slow focus with a plane that is on your viewfinder for 1/2 second).

Seriously, every single post of you in this thread has mentioned a 1.4x TC in some way or another, even after other people have repeatedly mentioned that it's nearly useless. I think the AF won't suffer from any limitations with a 1D body, but that's a $5000 camera.

And the 50-500 does not compare to the quality? I'm pretty sure that a 100-400 with a TC wouldn't be any better.

Just letting you know the 50-500 or 150-500 isn't actually 500mm, it goes up to about 480mm's. At least that's what I've heard and read... My main use of a TC would be the contrails, it would become very useful to identify the registrations and quality wouldn't be that bad. The Sigma is o.k but not as sharp as a Canon.

[Simpleboy]

I love how much you are preparing to spend on camera gear to take photos of contrails when you are only 13.

[ecapdeville]

but then again 13 yr old photographers seem to know best these days!

Hehe... I know what you mean

[Felipe Garcia]

Oh don't get me wrong, if the 1.4x is used correctly it's superb, as I too use a 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4x. It's when it's used with other lenses that things start to fall apart in terms of IQ and AF. The way I'm seeing it here is that Jan's busy telling us how great the 1.4x is with a 100-400 when in actual fact the 100-400 becomes a beast to use and you really have to slow down alot and think hard to get decent results from it, largely using manual AF or if you have AF, it's very hit and miss and slow. It's really not ideal, but then again 13 yr old photographers seem to know best these days!

And that's where I'm going. I use it with my 70-200 f4L and the results are great, but I'm very skeptical about the 100-400L being "great" with the 1.4x. I mean I've had my share of slow lenses (like my 75-300 USM) and whatever I have on my Maxxum film camera, and I really don't wanna go back to those days. I haven't missed anything with the 7D and the 70-200/1.4x due to focusing speed.

Also, I definitely knew more of theoretical phtoography when I got my Nikon Coolpix when I was 13 or 14 than I do now.

[Jan-Jasinski]

I love how much you are preparing to spend on camera gear to take photos of contrails when you are only 13.

14 in couple days... Well i've been working hard to get money and will get some support from family. I do not use my camera just for contrails. I shoot aviation, sports, weddings (cousin soon), family etc.
I could be takling nonsense and think I know everything (I do not).

[LX-A343]

Also, I definitely knew more of theoretical phtoography when I got my Nikon Coolpix when I was 13 or 14 than I do now.

First thing I did with my very first SLR camera (note "SLR" not "DSLR" ... these were the days!!): I bought some books about photography basics. I was more interested in composition, playing around with apertures and so on, than in which lens with which TC I should by next. does anybody remember what "pushing a film" means? My goodness ...

Regarding TC, I decided to get a TC (Kenko 1.4 most probably) for travellng around. My main lenses are Canon 10-22, 24-105 IS, 100-400 IS and 70-200, f/2.8 IS. On a spotting trip, I always have my complete lens set. So I can have the 24-105 on my 20D and either the 70-200 or the 100-400 on the 40D, depending on the needed zoom range.

On holidays I try to reduce the baggage to a minimum. As I simply adore the 70-200, I decided to travel around with my 24-105, 70-200 and to get a 1.4 TC for the extra reach on teh 70-200. Perhaps I also carry around the 10-22 for the extra effects.

[Simpleboy]

Pushing a film - shooting at a different ISO speed than that on the film and correcting in developing, (and no i did not google that)

Despite getting into photography well into the digital age, i went from a digital point n shoot to a film SLR and did a couple of courses. It helped me immeasurably and also kickstarted shooting well beyond planes.

And Jan, yes its your life and your money, but of the things you listed, a 70-200 fits the non aviation side of what you shoot much better than a 100-400, plus you'd get to buy your 1.4x TC and still get decent results.

[yash777]

TCs are really taking the piss in this thread.

[Felipe Garcia]

does anybody remember what "pushing a film" means? My goodness ...

Well, I used this one yesterday... twice

Sink darkroom by KE7WOX, on Flickr

[LX-A343]

Pushing a film - shooting at a different ISO speed than that on the film and correcting in developing, (and no i did not google that)