2.0x Extender vs. New Telephoto Lens Comparison

[celson]

I currently own the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM lens and am considering purchasing the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens for an upcoming African safari trip.  Curious to opinions on whether I would be better off buying the EF 2.0X III extender and using it on the 70-200 f/2.8 lens than buying the 100-400?  I have never used an extender, but it would seem from the specs that all I would be giving up on are the low light / longer focal length circumstances - while having the convenience of using a single lens for almost all circumstances and saving almost $1,500...

[TTMartin]

Canon EOS 40D with Sigma 150-500mm OS all photos credit to my wife and taken the same day.

150mm

289mm

500mm

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

Canon EOS 40D with Sigma 150-500mm OS all photos credit to my wife and taken the same day.

150mm

289mm

500mm

---

Well, those pictures are certainly sharper than the ones Ernie got with his Tamron.

But maybe the overriding message is that Tom's wife is a damned good photographer.

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

But maybe the overriding message is that Tom's wife is a damned good photographer.

---

I'll forward your complement. She has a good eye and she gets better every day. She is much more prolific than I am. She goes out basically daily, to my once or twice a week. As much as I've tried, she really doesn't understand the technical aspects of photography. Thank goodness for custom user settings. She knows when to use C1, C2, or C3 which I have set up for her. I know that is probably making some people cringe, but, she gets good results and enjoys it. 

[jrhoffman75]

"she gets good results and enjoys it."

Isn't that what it should be about (unless it's a business)?

[ebiggs1]

"She has a good eye and she gets better every day."

Practice does help.  "She is much more prolific than I am."

Perhaps you should let her do the photography if we want to do a comparison. She does nice work.

My off hand samples went through 'Save for web" reduction.  If left alone they look much better. I admit. They were not intended to be contest winners.  But you said the IQ would really suffer if a person used a crop camera instead of FF and the big Tammy. That is not correct, is it?

Here is one that is not so compressed.  This is a big crop of the original, BTW.  If there was going to be any problems that would show it.  Sitting on a 7D the Tamron is nearly 1000mm.  Some really serious focal length.  As good as the photos your wife did, she is working with 160mm less focal length.

And it didn't have any focus issues in spite of being an early release lens.

The one of the little boy was shot inside a rather dark resturant.  So it is, what it is. No excuses.

[TTMartin]

---

@celson wrote:

Apologies...I am new to this board as of yesterday and not familiar with protocols.  Was simply trying to say / imply "thanks for all the feedback, I think I've got what I need to help make a decision."

---

Seriously leave room in your budget for a little superzoom like the Canon SX50 HS (discontinued) or the most recent version.

While those little cameras have a lot of limitations, when you have good light and a static subject (birds in a tree), the amount of reach they have can be simply amazing. Read this review by Birding author Lilian Stokes. In addition to a 1D Mk IV, 1D X, and 7D Mk II cameras and a Canon big white lenses she also carries an SX50. 

Canon SX 50 HS for Bird Photography: I love this camera!

My wife carries one now too, in addition to her current 7D with Sigma 150-500 OS.

[jrhoffman75]

"Apologies...I am new to this board as of yesterday and not familiar with protocols.  Was simply trying to say / imply "thanks for all the feedback, I think I've got what I need to help make a decision.""

No need to apologize. It's good to see a poster acknowledge he/she has what is needed to address the initial question.

[ebiggs1]

" It's good to see a poster acknowledge he/she has what is needed to address the initial question.'

And doesn't need!

[ebiggs1]

"...  why not rent one?"

Renting is certainly an option but make sure you take out the insurance if you do. It isn't the same as when you rent and remain in the US.  Renting can be very expensive and all you have to show for it is a nice pink receipt.  

Buying one and selling it afterward even at a loss is probably a cheaper way to go.  White lenses re-sell easily and good.