If you had the choice, without consideration of price, which set will be your best buy? 70-200 mm 2.8 is with a canonTC x2 (only x1.4 if used with D30) Or the 100-400 mm 4.5-5.6 is

Using it with a EOS D30 or a Elan 7e. In connection with D30, it frightens me a little about the AF.

I intend to use the whole for sports as various as tennis, the motor bike races, basket ball ...

Thanks for your help. Uti.

-- Uti (titi2000@ifrance.com), October 01, 2001

Answers

If my primary need was for a fast medium telephoto zoom but I occasionally needed a longer telephoto zoom, and the price of any single lens plus extenders was not a problem, I would get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM and the 1.4x and/or 2x. That gives me an excellent fast lens with IS and a good longer lens with IS.

If my primary need was for a longer telephoto zoom and I could make do without a shorter, faster lens (or could maybe substitute a relatively inexpensive prime like the 100/2 or 135/2.8), I would get the 100-400. While I haven't seen any direct comparisons of either of the 70-200/2.8 lenses plus 2x TC vs the 100-400, the comments I've read (including the ones in the review at photo.net) make me believe that the 100-400 will have better optics than the 70-200 plus 2x TC.

When I can afford to replace my 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM with a better lens (hopefully early-to-mid 2002), I plan on buying the 100-400; based on my experience with the 100-300, my main complaints are that it's not long enough, it's not sharp enough, and it needs too much light for handholding. Either of the above choices will fix all of these problems but the 100-400 seems the most direct way of doing so (and, besides which, the 70-200 IS plus 2x TC will be quite a stretch financially).

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), October 02, 2001.

You can look at a review on this exact setup with the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS and 2x at the Luminous Landscape website here -> Luminous Landscape

-- Bill (meyerwj@louisville.stortek.com), March 22, 2002.