To IS f/4 or no IS f/2.8?

Excellent points, makes me ashamed to think that I had said to myself "200 2.8 with an extender if needed" :blushing:

Don't blush.... The 100-400mm versus 70-200mm plus 2x teleconverter is a topic that is discussed quite often. The images of 200mm f2.8 with a 2x teleconverter has been shown to be very acceptable but not at par with the 100-400mm lens at 400mm. If you have the 70-200mm f2.8 lens already and on occasion shoot past 200mm focal length, I don't see why the 2x or 1.4x teleconverter is not a viable option. I also believe that AF will also be slower.

More than one way to skin a cat... just a matter of weighing the adv versus dis. I knew someone who rented 600mm with 2x teleconverter. Sure a lot cheaper than renting or purchasing the 1200mm canon lens for 10's of thousands. He was camping and shooting wolves and bears at the time...
 
Unless you are the governer of california, don't forget that the 2.8 weighs a lot more than the 4. So if you plan on going hiking with the lens you might want to actually pickup a copy first and see if that is something you'd be comfortable hauling aound.
 
I have been debating for a while on the 70-200's. 4L IS, 2.8L non-IS, and 2.8L IS. I have decided on the 2.8L IS because of its versitility. It gives you low light shooting from IS and 2.8. It gives you high speeds for sports, flying birds, etc. Don't forget that a 2x converter will give you a 140-400 f/4 lens if you need more than 200mm.

These are the reasons that I used to decided to save and get the 2.8 IS. I just didn't want to get the 4L IS and wish I had the 2.8.

You just need to decide what you don't like about your f/4 (although its a great lens), not being a 2.8, no IS, or both.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top