Canon 70-300L IS upgrade?

[Simpleboy]

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

[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.

[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!

[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...

[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

[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.

[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]

I mean seriously. I could go on every Prius forum and suggest people to lift the heck out of their Prii and put 35" Mud-terrains, but that's not what they were designed for. You could pull it off, but that's beyond the intended design. This is no different.

[yash777]

What's the obsession with you suggesting 1.4x TC's? .

[Felipe Garcia]

Congrats, have fun! I am not sure if it takes TC`s but a 1.4 would be nice if you wanted more range.

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.

[Jan-Jasinski]

Congrats, have fun! I am not sure if it takes TC`s but a 1.4 would be nice if you wanted more range.

[B7772ADL]

OK I've made the decision!!
Listening to all the views I was going for a 3 lens set-up of 24-105/70-200/100-400. The 70-200 had to stay to give me greater overlap.
In the shop I was able to spend some time with both lens and compare them at similiar focal lengths 100/200/300 and over a variety of f stops. One lens hit the wow button imediately, the other was extremely dissapointing at 100 and still some way off at 200 & 300. I tried micro adjusting my 50D but to no avail. With only one copy of each I took the plunge for the lens that was vastly superior in image quality - to my eye.
I have bought the new 70-300 f4-5.6L IS. Perhaps the 100-400 was a poor copy, perhaps it is simply camera/lens relationship, some are great and some are not. I really wanted to like the 100-400 but it was not to be.
Now I have to decide in slow time what to do with my 70-200 f4L.
Regards, Rick

Congrats! Hope you enjoy your purchase. The 100-400 is a real enigma. There are some amazing copies out there but there are also some very poor ones too. I'm glad you were open to looking at other lens choices. There are some very good alternatives out there if you are willing to compromise a little. Now it's time to go use it!

[Felipe Garcia]

Congrats on the new lens.

Please let us know how it performs once you try it out.

[Rick C]

OK I've made the decision!!
Listening to all the views I was going for a 3 lens set-up of 24-105/70-200/100-400. The 70-200 had to stay to give me greater overlap.
In the shop I was able to spend some time with both lens and compare them at similiar focal lengths 100/200/300 and over a variety of f stops. One lens hit the wow button imediately, the other was extremely dissapointing at 100 and still some way off at 200 & 300. I tried micro adjusting my 50D but to no avail. With only one copy of each I took the plunge for the lens that was vastly superior in image quality - to my eye.
I have bought the new 70-300 f4-5.6L IS. Perhaps the 100-400 was a poor copy, perhaps it is simply camera/lens relationship, some are great and some are not. I really wanted to like the 100-400 but it was not to be.
Now I have to decide in slow time what to do with my 70-200 f4L.
Regards, Rick

[chris78cpr]

Rick,

I own the 100-400L and have had it for over 7 years now. A lens doesn't stay in my bag for that long unless it's good! I go through phases with mine and often pick up the 70-200F2.8LIS with a 1.4x instead but i know i can always rely on my 100-400 to deliver. Go fro the 100-400 and then maybe add a 24-105 to your bag to complete the range in a two lens kit.

Chris