Am I going To Be Kicking Myself...harder?

photoflections

On thursday, we got our refund, and I was so excited about getting my canon 100-400 lens. I sat here and figured out the total with shipping, went and did some other shopping, and came home to order it. It was then I realized I had somehow subtracted the price $400 LESS than it actually was, with no way to turn back. I couldn't get the lens. I literally cried. Like a baby. So, I looked at B&H again, and decided on a Canon 70-200 f/4L USM. I could afford that, and even though it's not the f/2.8 I'd heard wonderful reviews from various people, plus Fred Miranda reviews looked good. Then...I thought to myself..."Self...(that's what I call her)...why not get a handy dandy canon 2x II converter?". I looked at them, saw it was compatible with the lens and bought one. Now, I'm seeing all sorts of bad things about this combination. It's another year before I can get the 100-400 if this combo doesn't cut it. And of course I know if it doesn't, I can resell it. I'm going to go crazy waiting to find this out. I normally shoot outdoors in bright light, so the loss of f stops isn't a huge deal, but...I'm concerned. Has anyone tried this combo? (I already read the review in luminous landscapes, I'm just hoping maybe by some miracle someone has had good results).

Andy

i wouldn't recommend 70-200 f/4L + 2x tc.... you'll get a 2-stop loss of light with the tc, so you'd be at f/8, that's dark. try the 1.4x, only one-stop loss of light and the quality is much better.

good luck!

photoflections wrote:

On thursday, we got our refund, and I was so excited about getting my canon 100-400 lens. I sat here and figured out the total with shipping, went and did some other shopping, and came home to order it. It was then I realized I had somehow subtracted the price $400 LESS than it actually was, with no way to turn back. I couldn't get the lens. I literally cried. Like a baby. So, I looked at B&H again, and decided on a Canon 70-200 f/4L USM. I could afford that, and even though it's not the f/2.8 I'd heard wonderful reviews from various people, plus Fred Miranda reviews looked good. Then...I thought to myself..."Self...(that's what I call her)...why not get a handy dandy canon 2x II converter?". I looked at them, saw it was compatible with the lens and bought one. Now, I'm seeing all sorts of bad things about this combination. It's another year before I can get the 100-400 if this combo doesn't cut it. And of course I know if it doesn't, I can resell it. I'm going to go crazy waiting to find this out. I normally shoot outdoors in bright light, so the loss of f stops isn't a huge deal, but...I'm concerned. Has anyone tried this combo? (I already read the review in luminous landscapes, I'm just hoping maybe by some miracle someone has had good results).

marlinspike

photoflections wrote:

So, I looked at B&H again, and decided on a Canon 70-200 f/4L USM. I could afford that, and even though it's not the f/2.8 I'd heard wonderful reviews from various people, plus Fred Miranda reviews looked good. Then...I thought to myself..."Self...(that's what I call her)...why not get a handy dandy canon 2x II converter?".

Well, isn't the 70-200 f/2.8 $500 cheaper than the 100-400? Cuz that would work well with a 2x (well, mines a bit soft at 5.6 - I'm using the Mk 1 2x TC, Mk 2 is better - but stopping down just the 1/3 stop to 6.3 somehow makes it leaps and bounds sharper).
Richard

photoflections

marlinspike wrote:

Well, isn't the 70-200 f/2.8 $500 cheaper than the 100-400? Cuz that would work well with a 2x (well, mines a bit soft at 5.6 - I'm using the Mk 1 2x TC, Mk 2 is better - but stopping down just the 1/3 stop to 6.3 somehow makes it leaps and bounds sharper).
Richard

actually, the 100-400 was 1409 and the 70-200 f/2.8 was 1649. ...I had to get the f/4 or wait another year from now for a zoom lens. If I had subtracted 1409 isnstead of 1049 I wouldn't have had this problem...*kicks self again*

photoflections

andy wrote:

i wouldn't recommend 70-200 f/4L + 2x tc.... you'll get a 2-stop loss of light with the tc, so you'd be at f/8, that's dark. try the 1.4x, only one-stop loss of light and the quality is much better.

good luck!

Well the 2x is already on it's way, so that's what I'll have, I can't go back and get the 1.4x at this point. I don't mind the f/8, I usually shoot outdoors in bright conditions anyhow.

marlinspike

photoflections wrote:

Well the 2x is already on it's way, so that's what I'll have, I can't go back and get the 1.4x at this point. I don't mind the f/8, I usually shoot outdoors in bright conditions anyhow.

But how are you going to focus? Unless you have a 1 series camera you can forget about AF.
Richard

marlinspike

photoflections wrote:

actually, the 100-400 was 1409 and the 70-200 f/2.8 was 1649. ...I had to get the f/4 or wait another year from now for a zoom lens. If I had subtracted 1409 isnstead of 1049 I wouldn't have had this problem...*kicks self again*

A 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is about 1059 I believe.
Richard

EDITED to add, not to mention sharper than the IS version...though if I had the money I'd have gotten the IS, but I don't.
Richard

photoflections

marlinspike wrote:

But how are you going to focus? Unless you have a 1 series camera you can forget about AF.
Richard

I've been using manual focus recently, I can go with either or, depending on what I need to do.

photoflections

marlinspike wrote:

A 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is about 1059 I believe.
Richard

EDITED to add, not to mention sharper than the IS version...though if I had the money I'd have gotten the IS, but I don't.
Richard

yeah, I saw that but I wasn't in a $1000+ position at that point, so I got the f/4.

marlinspike

Well, not to beat a dead horse, but why not go used? Except for my bags that I got at steep discount from an ebay store, none of my photo stuff is new. My LNIB 70-200 cost me $950 shipped, my 2x Mk1 tc cost me 150, i got my rebel back in late august and it was LNIB withonly 1700 actuations (now has almost 9300), came with a 1gb CF card and cost $640. There's a lot of savings to be had in used equipment over at fredmiranda and mankman.

Well, the 70-200 f/4s dont lost much value so when you replace it down the road you wont be taking much of a hit anyways. But speaking of manual focusing, what kind of camera? Does it have the stock focusing screen? I'm having a hell of a time trying to manually focus my dRebel. Even at f/16, granted it's 560mm, I can't focus accurately enough to be in the DoF.
Richard

fish

photoflections wrote:

yeah, I saw that but I wasn't in a $1000+ position at that point, so I got the f/4.

I've got both the f4 and f2.8 IS. The quality of the images is indistinguishable to my eyes. What makes the difference is the IS version can be used with much slower shutter speeds, and my shaky hands are somewhat compensated.

I've tried the 1.4x extender on the f4, and it works fine in very bright sunshine. But at f5.6 with the extender and no IS, it's really tough to get sharp images without a tripod (there's a hint in there somewhere

photoflections

marlinspike wrote:

Well, not to beat a dead horse, but why not go used? Except for my bags that I got at steep discount from an ebay store, none of my photo stuff is new. My LNIB 70-200 cost me $950 shipped, my 2x Mk1 tc cost me 150, i got my rebel back in late august and it was LNIB withonly 1700 actuations (now has almost 9300), came with a 1gb CF card and cost $640. There's a lot of savings to be had in used equipment over at fredmiranda and mankman.

Well, the 70-200 f/4s dont lost much value so when you replace it down the road you wont be taking much of a hit anyways. But speaking of manual focusing, what kind of camera? Does it have the stock focusing screen? I'm having a hell of a time trying to manually focus my dRebel. Even at f/16, granted it's 560mm, I can't focus accurately enough to be in the DoF.
Richard

I have bought used equipment before, it was a treat I was giving myself to buy new for a change, I'm using the D-Rebel also. So far I've only used manual focus up close, I haven't yet attempted distance.