--- Jorrit de Jager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given these criteria I came to either a 70-200 2.8 > IS USM or a 100-400 > 4.5 -5.6 IS USM. (If there are more please let me > know) > Both are L-glass, have ring USM and IS (and about > the same price tag). Two good choices. I've owned both, and just sold one. See my comments interspersed below. > Adding > converters, the 70-200 can also reach 400 (560?) and > still be fully > functional. The 70-200 with 2x works very well. I've not actually compared the 70-200 IS + 2x with the 100-400, but I did compare the older 70-200 + 2x. AT 400mm, I found them very comparable. If anything, I'd rate the lens + 2x very slightly better. I've not tried it with both TCs combined, but I'd not expect it to be acceptable for critical work. That may be one small advantage of th 100-400 + 1.4x. > I want to put the new lens on my EOS 50E (Elan IIE) > body. I�ve been told > that because of light metering limits (of the body) > the use of the > 100-400 in > combination with converters is a problem for AF (2x > converter puts the > min. f at 11). The 50E will AF down to f5.6. Below that, the camera shuts off AF. So the 70-200 + 2x will work fine, as will the 100-400 by itself, but not with either TC. One way to partially get around this is to use a 3rd party TC that doesn't transfer the actual f-stop to the body. But you will find AF somewhat less reliable that way. > > So my questions: > > The specs claim that the 50 can AF up to EV 18, does > this mean that with > converters I will have limited AF or will I have no > AF with the 100-400? The 50 works fine with either lens. > I have no main field of interest yet, so there's a > good reason to go for > the most versatile lens. (I shoot about everything I > lay my eyes on and > seems picturesque, indoors and outdoors) This is the main reason I decided on the 70-200 + TC. The combination is much more versatile. Without the TC, you've got a fast f2.8 maximum aperture, as well as a somewhat wider field of view at the short end. I use this lens for indoor sports like basketball, where I think the 100-400 just wouldn't work. It also makes a surprisingly good portrait lens, as long as your model isn't easily intimidated. I also really, really dislike the push-pull zoom action on the 100-400. I find it not terribly smooth. When shooting sports, the zoom ring on the 70-200 makes it much easier (for me, at least) to keep up with players moving toward me. OTOH, the 70-200 + 2x is certainly more expensive. HTH, ===== Bob Meyer I wish I knew what I know now, when I was younger... http://www.meyerweb.net/epson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
