View Single Post
  #4  
Old October 24th 05, 03:43 AM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter




"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
oups.com...
The 100-400 IS is the worst lens in my kit


Skip Middleton writes ...

Worst, in this case, is a relative term.


Yes, I can pick between the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 300 f/4 L, 400 f/5.6 L,
100-400 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the 100-400 is definitely the weak
sister (relative?) in this litter.


It's also one of the least expensive of that lot. I've shot side by side
with a buddy who has the 70-200 f2.8/2X combination, and my results were a
little better with the 100-400, which is the main reason I haven't gotten
rid of it. It's still pretty good, relative to the other L zooms in our
quiver, the f2.8 triplets.

The 100-400L is a pretty good lens


Now that you have a full frame digital body shoot a grey card or even
toned sky with it at 400 f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 and check for vignetting
... I have one of the "good" ones per Roger Clark's tests (at least for
center resolution) and with a 1.6x body like the 10D vignetting is OK
wide open, with a 1.3x body (1D Mark II) I get too much light fall off
at the corners wide open and need f/8, and with a full frame body (1Ds)
I have to go to f/11 to get rid of the vignetting. This is the only
non-wide angle lens I own that has a vignetting problem like this so to
me it doesn't qualify as a "pretty good lens". None of the other four
tele lenses do this. I can even shoot the 500 f/4 L with a 2x wide
open with no problem, but not the 100-400 even without a converter.


Hmmmm, I haven't tried it with my 5D, but I never had a problem with it with
film, did you? BTW, mine is like yours, one of the good ones, based on
Roger's tests, too. In fact, if I remember correctly, you and I were part
of the discussion with him that his results weren't consistent with what we
both got...

... but nothing else will do what it does ...


That's the only reason I haven't dumped mine ... when I fly to Alaska
with space and weight limitations this lens seems to worm its way into
the bag beside the 500 f/4 L even though ideally I'd rather take the
70-200 and the 400 f/5.6 (last trip for instance I took the 28-70 f/2.8
L, 100-400 IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the bag still weighed 36 lbs with
two pro bodies ...) ... but the IS means I can shoot from a platform or
a plane or handheld or whatever with a couple extra stops and the
100-400 zoom range is very handy.


I just carried a bag with the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, all f2.8, the 100-400,
20D and 5D, Sunpak TR-2000 battery pack and spare battery cluster and 580EX.
now there's some weight. It wasn't really a practical bag to carry, I was
just lugging those things into the camera store to see if I could find a bag
that would actually carry all that, plus auxiliary cords, batteries,
diffusers, memory cards and filters. No luck, so far...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com