This more of a photography question than astronomy but everyone knows IIS is the best source of info on almost anything.
I have a Canon 400D with the EFS 17-85 IS lens. I'm very happy with this setup but I'm thinking adding telphoto lens(es), with an L in the name. The obvious choice is a 70-200 but I'm interested in wildlife photography, especially birds, and so perhaps the extra length of the 100-400 might be more appropriate - certainly with my old film camera I used the 600mm fairly often and it is about equivalent to 400mm with the smaller sensor. Buying both is out of the question but perhaps a tele-extender could give me the best of both worlds. If I got the 70-200 in the f/2.8 then it can be converted to a 140-400 f/5.6. The question is: how much does the extender degrade image quality? How would the image through the 70-200 plus expender compare to the 100-400, especially at the longer focal lengths? In a similar vein, how do the 1.4x extender and 2x compare?
I have the 70-200 f/4L IS, and the 1.4x Extender. The 70-200 is wonderful, absolutely tack sharp and really easy to use. IS is a personal choice, but I love this too. The 1.4x Extender works really well, and doesn't degade the images noticeably. I do find extenders to be a bit of a pain to use, swapping on and off etc, but they are a good compromise.
I'm tossing up what longer lens to get also, as you can read in a thread started a couple of days ago here: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=70581
You mentioned birds, if that's your aim then either the 100-400L or if you can make do with fixed focal length then the 400mm f5.6 L would be even better. There're a lot of info on Ausphotography forum there are some very keen birders and you can get an idea of how these lenses perform.
Although I have the 70-200 2.8L IS (and it works pretty well with a 1.4 extender, I'd go for the prime L lenses for Ap and birding. In AP, zooms introduce quite noticable image degradation, particularly at the corners.
If the 2.8s (300, 400) and f4s (500, 600) are beyond budget. Then as Phil suggested, the 400L f5.6 is a good performer but I would suggest either the 200 2.8L (non IS only, I think) or the 300 f4L IS.
It may also be worth looking into the old FD series telephotos, as: a) They have fantastic colour correction as they use pure Fuorite as one of the elements and b) they can be had for MUCH less than the EF-USM models.
There are a few posts around telling you how to build FD-EOS adapters and there may now be some available commercially that aren't rubbish.
Good Luck,
Peter
PS. I think there's an FD 300 2.8L on Astromart for about $US1000. That's about $4000 cheaper than the EF-USM model!
I had both a 1.4x and 2x extender. Sold the 2x because it does degrade image quality a bit. Still have the 1.4x but rarely gets used. I have the 100-400 and although I can use the 1.4x on it, autofocus won't work because effective max aperture is greater than f/5.6 with it on. If you're into wildlife I'd lean towards the 100-400 over 70-200 with extender.
Hi David - I've used both models of the 70-200mm f4 series (non-IS and IS) with a 1.4x extender primarily for astrophotography.
The stars are excellent test subjects to highlight any optical deficiencies in such combinations of glass.
I found the non-IS and extender combo to be the best - little to no CA visible on bright stars, the IS version didn't fair so well with noticeably obvious CA around the brighter stars.
Perhaps there's some variability between lens examples - but that's my experience.
The non-IS + extender would be my choice - light enough as a walk around lens and serious bang for buck!!
I recently decided to sell my extender due to little use on my 70-200 f4L IS and go for a longer FL prime - the 400mm f5.6L (waiting for it to arrive). Chris (hotspur) will tell you how good that lens is for birding I'm sure.
All the best
Doug
Yes,the 400 F 5.6 L is the way to go for birding-I bought this lens for the number on reason of birding and aircraft photography.
It came down to 3 choices the 100-400 canon,the 300 F4 prime canon,and the 400 L.
The 100-400 was quickly stuck of my list-to heavy and bulky,and personally I do not the 'pus-pull'.
When you are in the rough bush locations I go to,I found when at 400 on the 100-400 it was too long and cumbersome.
Also some copies of the 100-400 are good and some are so-so.
The 400 L is very quick to focus,very light,the hood slips over the body when not in use,and very quickly can be drawn out to be in use-this fact may not seem much,but out in the field time is everything.Also you will find you are always at 400 for birding,so the extra weight of the 100-400 was just a needless extra
The girth of the 400L is nice to hold,same tripod ring as the 70-200 F4 lens.
also for astronomy photography the 400L really shines-its a 'defacto' Tak 106 f 5.6,I really have not used it much for astro work,but what I have seen tells me its very good for that type of thing.
I never use a tripod or monopod,so do not let the 'man-babies' tell you its no good because its got no IS.
Here is an image from a birdwatching trip-(walking back to camp,and it came in low.I'd like to have gotten a bit closer to the back set cargo)
70-200 to short for birding,great for general use,larger animals like deer and kudu.
There doesn't seem one lens that does everything. Surprise, surprise. The 70-200 is too short for birding, the 100-400 is too bulky for birding and has the oldest IS technology, the 400 prime is only good for birding and leaves a 'hole' from 85 to 400mm .... The 70-300 might be a good compromise if 300 is long enough for birding but it is the only L lens that doesn't accept an extender.
I had a look at the site Leon recommended and the image degradation of the extenders is obvious, especially the 2x. On the other hand a 70-200 with a 2x extender is still sharper than my present EF-S lens. I'll have a look at the sites recommended by others tonight and perhaps I can reach a decision before my brain explodes.
Anyone want to comment on the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark 1 vs Mark 2? And how often in the real world is f/2.8 an advantage over f/4?
BTW Leon, what lens did you use for the wagtail series you posted a month or so ago?
I dont want to add to the confusion, but. If this is helpful then great, if not just disregard. This is wot I did...
200mm f/2.8L II USM (reported to be a very good prime lens). With APS-C sensor, equivalent FL 320mm (+60%). For birding, that is, birds in flight, sufficient FOV to follow a moving bird. Excellent 3rd party opinions regarding AP usage.
Plus 2x extender - latest version (earlier versions reported not as good).
BTW I use a 100mm macro for everything below this. And it does nice wide field AP - very sharp.
This may be too inflexible for you. My requirements are quite specific. And for me, more cost effective than owning a refractor of similar size.
He has thought long and hard about his approach and interests in regard to HIS needs,and got the best kit to suit those needs and interest areas.
I feel,many lenses are 'special purpose' lenses,-and each of us here is fairly dedicated to a few particular branches of photography,so looking for that 'all purpose use' lens is pretty hard.
Its a bit like asking for an all purpose rifle/fishing rod/metal detector etc,they just do not exist,if there was a all purpose lens,we would all have a 10 mm to 1000 mm that would fit in out top pocket.
So we have to think of what we truly want the best results in a certain area of our interest.
You mention birding,I too spend many hours in the field,have used many different lenses,and the best I have used is that 400 L f 5.6 L,(if funds were unlimited-get the Canon 500 L F 4)
For regular use on everyday things and some birding a 70-200 F 4 is ideal,(either non IS or IS,i'd go for the non IS)
Those are the two very finest lens that I would take on a overseas birding trip (well if I won lotto the 500L would be coming too,but I'd still take that 400 its so light)
I have a 70-200 F 2.8 I have used it for birding,its ok when I get very close,but woul not recommend it for birding-once again I thought long a hard on what I needed it for,before I bought it and are very happy with it foer that purpose.
Knowing what I know now,I may have bought a 70-200 F4 as it would certainly get a bit more regular general use.
Meaning no disrespect for Humayan,but I disagree with his previous post.
At f 2.8 you will not get much of the bird is focus,only the head.I have lost points because of using F 5.6 many times,because the birds' back area are out of focus,I use F 6.3 and even F 7.1 many times.
Using a slow and steady technique you will get lots of the birds body in focus,all the bird magazines and papers I send to want that result,I've been chipped a few times for body/tail out of focus using f 5.6.
No disrespect for Humayan thoughts on F 2.8,but its no good for general birding,if you are in a rainforest it would be useful.
I feel Humayan's thoughts on using F2.8 may be for glamour and weddings etc,for which it is very good,that is the reason for what I bought my F 2.8 lens for-not birding,if I was going to use the 70-200 for birding/general use I'd buy the F 4 version.
Hope this helps,I do not mean to open a can of yomes here.
That new 70-300 F 4-5.6 L certainly sounds like a really good one to look at.
i just got myself a 200mm f2.8 prime on fleabay..i saw it & put what i thought was a lowish bid--forgot about it not expecting to win-then won, i found when birding i was mostly using the 70-200mm f4 non IS at 200mm, and the prime has many fewer elements for astro -it should arrive in a couple of days
Hi Chris, I didn't read it that way, as we have all been involved in sorting out my approach to solving f/ratio / DOF / shutter speed / focus issues. I read it as two ideas in one sentence - busyness I suspect. But what you are saying is correct. f/2.8 is difficult to manage - for me anyway.
Still it's a very fine piece of optics for the price, and you won't be disappointed unless it doesn't suit your needs. Adding a 2x extender is an inexpensive increase in focal length, but I still have work to do testing the combination under outskirt suburban skies. For stationary birds the combination is as sharp as a tack.
i took a couple of test shots today with the 200 f2.8 when it arrived -primarily because what chris & H said both seemed to make sense..some shots are sharp, but others are out of focus as chris says
shot at f2.8 & /1260 & 1/320
depends on the animal body position -across mor ein focus, if it is stretched out part will be out of foucs
the 200mm f2.8 is heavier than i thought -more so than the 70-200 f4, arder to handhold, the close focus isn't great at about 1.5m, the ef25 brings that to about 1.0m by my rough guesstimate
Thank you to everyone for the advice. There are lots of good points there. I've been reading, thinking, counting the dollars and procrastinating. I've sort of got a couple of options in mind but all of them start with a 70-200. It just seems like such a generally useful lens that I should have one in the kit. So the first question is: f/2.8 or f/4? The choice is obviously a trade off so I'm sort of wondering when do people find they use f/2.8 wide open? I can think of indoors w/o flash, sport or other action, twilight landscape .... what else.
I've also noticed that the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is about the same as the Canon f/4 version and >$800 cheaper than the Canon f/2.8. I know which is better quality but Sigma are supposed to have improved considerably recently and have lots of happy owners, and I consider myself just a hobbyist. Should I forgo the Canon quality to get a f/2.8?