I have the X2 TC and the 70-200 2.8 IS. I've used them together once so far, (haven't had them very long), and I don't notice a big degradation in quality. I don't yet have the 100-400, so I can't do a comparison. My general feeling about it though, is that there isn't a big degradation in quality. I can send you a sample when I get a chance to do it if you like.
__________________ Dennis
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I have the 100-400L IS, and also the 300 f2.8L IS. I don't do motorsports, but I've used both of these lenses for outdoor sports like baseball and golf, and also for birding.
In good light, you're ok with the 100-400, and I actually like the push-pull design. This feature made me hesitate for a while to purchase it because of all the negative opinions I read. But I can tell you that after using this lens for the first few days, I wouldn't complain if all my zoom lenses were the push-pull type. I have not had any problems with dust that I can attribute to the use of this lens.
In less than bright light, it's a different story. Depending on what kind of shutter speeds you need for motor sports, it may not be fast enough. For baseball, the 100-400 us useless for evening games because you can't get near the shutter speeds you need.
After some hard thought, I purchased the 300 f2.8, and I would not hesitate to say that it's simply an awesome tool. I use it for baseball and golf and even for nature and birding stuff. I don't hesitate to attach a 1.4 extender to it, but I do not have the 2x. I've wondered about that combo myself, so it's good to hear a few opinions about it. However, I can quote one person who I think is reliable. Last spring I bumped into Chas Glatzer (professional nature photographer) when I was out doing some bird photography, and he said that his 300 f2.8 with a 2x extender was as sharp as his 600 f4. I can't vouch for his opinion, but even if he's exaggerating a little bit, it must still be a decent combination.
Since I've never done motorsports I can't suggest what lenses you should purchase, but know that at f5.6 at the long end, the 100-400 needs decent light if you have to have a fast shutter.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I could use my X1.4 TC on the 100-400 and still retain autofocus on the 1Ds while getting 560mm.
By the way, there's a trick where you can tape over several of the contacts on certain teleconverters and even get a lesser camera to AF with the 100-400 and 1.4x. I do that all the time with my 20D and Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC.
I have the 100-400 and it works very well for day sports. Crisp images, fast focus and the same size and weight as the 70-200 f/2.8. The push/pull zoom took about 2 minutes to get used to I really like it. In low light stick with an f/2.8 lens.
If money were no object then the 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8 are ideal. You may want to hire a porter though for a long day of shooting. :-) (they're heavy)
__________________ Ron
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I have a Sigma 120-300/2.8 and find it incredibly versatile; I've used it for indoor sports as well as motorsports. If I need longer focal lengths I can use the lens with a 1.4x converter, or pull out my Canon 400/2.8 (but only when I am willing to deal with extra attention). If I need to go hand-held (the Sigma is just too heavy for hand-holding for any length of time), I use a 70-200/2.8.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Thanks to everyone for all the great advice. Unfortunately some of you just had to put in a plug for the 300mm f/2.8 L IS!! There I was nearly settled on the 100-400, with maybe the 24-105 as a walking around lens for a total outlay of about $2,300. But oh no
Back comes Tim with his
"I purchased the 300 f2.8, and I would not hesitate to say that it's simply an awesome tool"
and I go away and do some more research, and the more I read about the 300mm the more awesome it sounds, and the more I would love to have one and it's only $4,000 without the 24-105!!
So I have decided to rent the 300 and the 100-400 and see if there is any way to justify the cost of the 300 over the 100-400. I'll add a post here with what I find out next week.
As part of the justification, does anyone have a feel for how well the 300 would hold its value over a couple of years of ownership?
Thanks again.
David.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Generally speaking, good Canon lenses - heck all Canon lenses - hold their value like few products do. I think the only thing that would break that would be for Canon to move to a new mount, and I really don't see that happening any time soon.
-Noel
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
and it's only $4,000 without the 24-105!!
Linear Mode
