Canon 70-200 f/4

[adam613]

Has anyone used a Canon 70-200 f/4 with a teleconverter for plane-spotting?

Background: I've gotten rather into landscape photography (thanks, HDR guys...), and I'm considering trading in my 70-300 IS for a 70-200 f/4, which is a far better lens for that sort of thing. With a 1.4x teleconverter, the range would be similar...my in-store testing indicates that the quality is at about the same (a little better at the far end, a little worse at the near end).

Is this a terrible idea, or is it next on my rental list?

(I know there are a few people using 70-200 f/2.8s with 2x teleconverters, but for that kind of weight and money, I'd rather get a "real" super-telephoto lens.)

[lijk604]

Dan Evans in Albany uses this combo 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4x his shots do not seem to suffer for it.
Check them out...
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.s ... entry=true (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Daniel%20J.%20Evan s&distinct_entry=true)

[SmAlbany]

Dan Evans in Albany uses this combo 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4x his shots do not seem to suffer for it.
Check them out...
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.s ... entry=true (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Daniel%20J.%20Evan s&distinct_entry=true)

Thanks for the plug John!

If you want to see what the results with the TC look like, probably better to look at the shots on jp.net

http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=14228


Not all of my shots are taken with the TC so at least on jp you can look at the lense field to see what was used (I try to report this accurately)

I think that the quality with the combo is pretty good. I don't hesitate to use the TC if I need the reach but I prefer to go without it if I don't.

Dan

[adam613]

Sweet...the prevailing theory seems to be that the 70-200 f/4 is freakin' awesome, and it takes a TC well enough for the times when I need to go to 300mm (The Mounds). And I have a buyer on my 70-300 IS, so I'm going to try to pick up the new stuff tomorrow.

Question: IS or not? I can afford the IS version, but and I know it's a bit sharper, but I'm not sure it's $400 sharper...

[T-Bird76]

Daniel's results are very good however you can't compare the spots at ALB to the spots at JFK. JFK requires a 100-400 and I think your going to be disappointed with the results using a teleconverter to get the focal length you need using the 70-200. Adam if your reasons are purely to get your hands on L glass then the 70-200 F4 is not the way to go. The 70-300 IS USM lens has been rated equal to if not better then the 70-200 F4 L lens. Essentially you aren't upgrading your glass at all, in fact IMO it’s a downgrade and a waste of money.

I know you had problems with the 100-400 but facts can't be disputed, the 100-400 is the spotter’s choice in glass and at the same focal length Daniel is shooting the 100-400 is far superior then the 70-200 F4. Now if you were looking at the 70-200 F2 that would be a major upgrade to the 70-300 you have but not the 70-200 F4. You really should reconsider your purchase.