Hi :) After lots of postings, readings and taking closer looks to test-pictures, my telezoom-lens-question is reduced to two options. CANON EF 70-200/2,8L IS USM with Canon 2*-Converter or CANON EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS USM The second is cheaper but i don't know if this pull-push-zoom works good for me. And (what is more important), the first one for sure is the better solution in the 70-200-range (without converter). The only remainig question is: at 400mm focal lenght, can the 70-200*2 compete with the 100-400mm? Some pics say "yes" .. other people tell horrific things of that converters ... so i'm asking you ... any ideas? Thx in advance! Tom :)

Quality and converters aren't good friends.

Thanks Francesc, but though you're absolutely right, that's not enough to me. :)

Some people say, 2200 in this case is better than 400 (both zoom-lenses)? Of course i do believe, that a fixed-focal-lenght-lens 400/f4 is a lot better lens then the 70-2002 (at 400mm) .. but sorry, i'd buy a car if i had that much money (starting at 5500 Euro) sigh. To me (as to the most people i think) this is a careful balance between desired quality and available money. Having enough money, i'd say "yep, you're right, let's throw all converters in a nearby river" :-)). But with my limited budget i have to ask, how to get the most out of my money with knowing, that i cannot get the best that's possible.

Therefore, the 70-200 2.8 IS would be great in the range i use a lot with the option to expand it via converter in the rare but sometimes necessary range 200-400. But is it good enough at 400mm compared to the 100-400? On the other hand, the 100-400 is cheaper and offers the whole range i need in one lens .. with questionable handling and less quality in the lower focal lenghts which i do need more often.

As an alternative, i thought about 300 (fixed-focal-lenght)*1,4 which will be way better than 200(zoom)*2, but that leaves me with my less than perfect 75-300 IS or will cost double to buy both. Also, there's that problem with fixed-focal-lenght in handling. If you do know, where the object to shoot will be, fixed-focal-lenghts is better, but as i'm no pro, i like the versatility of a zoom lens (once again knowing, that i do get inferior quality).

Sorry, just wanted to explain what i think, please don't get me wrong Francesc and thanks again!! :)

Reading your arguments the 100-400 (with the possibility *2 = 800) is the best for you. An alternative are other manufactures, I have lenses Sigma, Tamron, Vivitar... If your camera isn't a eos 1V you have more reasons to consider this alternative as the high recommended Sigma for example. Michelle is a happy user of Sigma too, wait for her opinion.

(100-)400*2 isn't an option. The aperture of 5.6 with the loss of another 2-3 aperture-values will give me an F8 or the like. That means no AF and a usability just with the best possible light. Btw: the cam is an(other g) 300D. But of course, if there are any alternatives, i'd love to hear. No need to hurry, i won't have the money before the end of march :) Other manufacturers are fine with me ... even if loosing IS will be hard to take at that focal lenghts .. (using a Sigma macro-lens and my standard-lens is from Tamron) Thanks again .. now waiting on dear Michelle :)

Ooops .. i forgot: 800mm are not necessary ;). 300 is a must .. 400 would be nice but if i can't get it for a reasonable quality/price, i can live without .. just to clarify that :)

I consider 800 excessive too and more for a camera with factor of correction 1,6; isn't?, better for you. I reiterate in the 100-400 but for a digital 6mp I think that, if you buy Canon, you'll see the difference in price more than with the quality.

I can tell you about the 100-400 IS lens, the slide zoom is excellent it took getting used to but it is fast and easy to control plus you can lock the zoom at at any point. If you need more than the 200mm offers and have to resort to a 2x converter I would suggest getting the 100-400 in the first place. I have used the 2x type ll converter it's really good for whit it is but it is not a replacement for a good lens in the first place. Randy

I'm not a lens expert... I think I just said that in another thread... but I've never used a converter and probably never will. As both enax and Randy have both said, they fill a need, but they are not replacements for a good lens. Nice to see that Randy knows the lens.... I think Donald is also a Canon lens expert. When he pops in I'm sure he can give you some pointers. :~)

Yep Michelle, i remembered that but as enax said, you're using one .. ;) (he's talking of your macro-lens me thinks). Donald is using the 70-200 i have in mind and if i remember it correctly, he loves it.

If you look to this comparison (klick here) the 70-200*2 seems to be well able to compete with the 100-400 even at 400mm, not to talk of the range from 70-200. But as i don't know this guy, i'll listen very careful to what you say! :)

Randy: thank you very much! I really hoped on some statements to that lens .. couldn't find anyone having it! Are you happy with the IS on this one as it is an older model than the one used in the 70-200? The newer one doesn't have to be switched off on a tripod and will in some cases improve picture quality even on a tripod (at least, that's one of the gurus over here state).

Thanks to all of you!!!
Tom

Here's the link for you Randy .. about that IS-thingie, i think, it'll be of interest to some other people too .. There are shots with even using the 1.4* and the 2*converter together on a 70-200 on his site (over here)... 8^0 click here - read a while ... the important parts come in the second half .. Another comparison .. with another conclusion: over here .. So whom to believe?

The IS has 2 modes type 1 and 2 the later is for action shots were you are panning and type 1 for still or single shots, or you can turn it off completely. I leave mine on type 2 most of the time for action shots (nature) but for racing shots I have been told to shut it off completely. I will get a chance to test both at the Daytona 24 hr race the end of this month. I used the 2x type ll on my 100-400 lens and was not happy with it, first I lost AF even though it was = to f11 2nd the standard focus screen on the 1d is a matte type unless you were in bright light it was hard to manually focus I have since ordered a split type focus screen . I found even off a tripod there was a difference in image quality so I returned the converter and bought a speedlight ex 550 flash instead. Randy

Ok, thank you! That's what the manual tells too but it's another thing to hear it from someone, using it in the fields. :) Is the opening aperture (4.5) a problem sometimes? As the weather tends to be not that great over here most of the time, this can be a point for the 70-200 (2.8)? The gap between 70 and 100 shouldn't be a problem at all .. me thinks. But (very slowly) i do believe, i should forget about that converter ... sigh Tom

In an effort to understand more on teleconverters, I went back to one of my favorite books..... "John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide" John Shaw is a very well know landscape/nature photographer and his word is like gospel to me.... :~) Here's what he had to say about teleconverters, in Chapter 3 on lenses.... "A 2x converter doubles the focal length of whatever lens it's used on and at the same time slows down all marked f/stops by two. A 300mm f/4 becomess a 600mm f/8 when a 2x converter is added." Ok so what this tells me.... is that you are going to need a very fast lens in order to get a useable shutter speed. More from John Shaw..... "For best results, use dedicated converters with long lenses".... meaning by the Canon, Nikon, or whatever brand for the brand lens you are using. "Use the fastest lens you can. Unless you are working at high noon, you'll barely be able to see through the lens, let alone hit sharp focus. An f/11 lens (with that teleconverter) is totally useless for bird and mammal work in natural light since you are forced into such long exposure times." "Use the best prime lens you can. The highest quality teleconverter will yield mediocre results, if used on a mediocre lens. All converters magnify defects, optical abberations, and lack of sharpness. Use a lens that already produces these things and you'll just get more of them." "Use the best photographic technique you can." "For the most part avoid using zoom lenses. Zoom lenses are already optically complex, with many elements in the light path. If you start adding more elements, like the teleconverter, image quality quickly falls apart. There are exceptions though, specifically the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 EOS lens used with the Canon EF teleconverters, and Nikons 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S lens mated with the TC-E converters." He also recommends... "Use a 1.4X in preference to a 2X.....because image integrity is better maintained..... part of the reason for this is because it changes the light hitting the film by one stop instead of two." "Auto-Focus may or may not work." "The exposure readout in the camera may or may not work." Uhhh..... I could go on and on.... he's dedicated 4 pages to the subject, most of it negative I hate to say. :~/

Thank you very much for typing all this!! Of course people like he argue from another viewpoint than we do. He's able to afford fixed-focal-lenght lenses in all necessary sizes. That way, he can get the optimum results under any conditions. For a price almost reaching 6 digits. He has no need for an extender and he's right, that they don't do any good quality-wise - which is no problem for him.

But take a look to this pic: click .. 500/F41.42 = 1400/F11 .. the eye of a cheetah with TWO extenders.

Poelking (the "guru" i've mentioned before and the one, providing that pic above) tried to quantify the loss a 2*extender will provide by app. 20%. That's a lot .. but is it that much, that people like me will notice? I do fear, the answer is "yes". So no extender?

On the other hand, do i have alternatives? Fixed-focal-lenght is/are not affordable, so it has to be zoom lenses (even if Mr. Shaw is absolutely right about them being inferior due to many problems). Randy does wonders with his 100-400 so this one cannot be wrong. Donald does wonders with his 70-200 (without extender) and this one does have a range, which is enough for me for 85% of all cases and it's better in that range .. Is it the question now if i can accept loosing lenght in wining quality or not? I don't want to do any more compromises ... the first 70-300 went back, the second 75-300 IS doesn't make me happy too, so the next one should be the last one .. sigh

Thanks a lot for that much typing again!! :)

Btw.: AF and exposure-readout will work fine with the 70-2002 but won't work with the 100-4001.4 (can be modified to work at least under good conditions) .. but that's of no importance anymore ... :^ Time to go to bed now ... have a great evening! Yours, Tom

It would be really nice if manufacturers supplied data. So many conflicting reports! I find, as a general trend, that when I use a zoom I'm cranked up to the maximum focal length anyway. Certanly not always, but most of the time. Also, I'm usually on a tripod, or at least braced, with the subject mostly sedentary. [This is very different from Donald, I would imagine...] That 400mm/f4 DO lens mentioned in one of the articles above is very exciting. Would not really need IS for my purposes. [Too bad it costs as much as a trip to New Zealand!] Short. Light weight. The best lens for the job often depends on other issues than optical quality. Just wish manufacturers would be more forthcoming about optical performance. [The pictures in one of the reviews above sure lool like the 200mm IS + teleconverter works pretty well!]

Mark, yep, i got that point even if it really hurts. I'll browse through the exifs of my pics next weekend and look, if 200mm could be sufficient. Otherwise, i'd go with Randy and give that slide-zoom a chance. The spare 200 Euro can be the Potatoshop CS - update .. could make that option even sweeter. Misha, how about using no telezoom at all and just enjoy New Zealand (carrying a small standard-zoom)? g Just dreaming ... Best regards and thanks again to all you helpful souls out there!! :) Tom