|
I've seen some excellent shots taken using a 100-400, even with an extender, with other subject matter - birds for example, where the detail in feathers and colour is everything.
It's always going to be a compromise and the very latest sensors may be stretching its capabilities somewhat or, to put that anouther way, it may not be able to get the best out of them. But then judging by the new lens developments that Canon have been trying to prepare recently (disrupted by tsunamis and other things) many lenses may not be able to extract the very best results that are now possible. (Or it could be marketing hype of course ....)
I have a 70-200 f2.8 IS II and it's a cracking lens. It will also produce some great shots with MkII 2x extender fitted, especially when there is some light around. Sadly I seemed to be at a lot of dark and damp meetings in the UK last year so the top quality hit rate ratio dropped a bit as might be expected. On the upside at least the available light and spray offered some variety for the images.
I've never used a 100-400. I was very tempted until I hired the 70-200 for a weekend and fell for it despite its limited focal length (for quite a lot of motor sport locations in the UK at least) and higher price.
Right now a long EOS prime would be nice, but I have a manual FD mount prime to fall back on when I have enough enthusiasm to carry it around! No AF - that may be a benefit in some ways.
Mind you with that lot I would probably need an assistant!
|