Can I replace my 100-400 with a 70-200 + 1.4 TC?

[petemc]

Optically speaking, if I got a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC would it be as good as a 100-400? I don't really use my 100-400 a lot unless its a big event with crowds I need to zoom past. When I do use it I find myself around the 200mm range and its then I'm thinking that I would prefer the 70-200 f/2.8 to compliment my 24-70. However, the obvious issue is that there are times when I like to go to 400mm and if I put a TC on the 70-200 would it be *as* sharp?

 

[Darryn]

IMO, my 70-200f2.8IS +1.4x is sharper than the 100-400 i had... whether my 100-400 was a poor copy im not sure.

 

[petemc]

If my 100-400 is a bad copy then I would be seriously impressed with a good copy.

Thats pretty sharp in my book. I'd be happy if the 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC produced that. Are there any issues using a TC? Loss of AF, hair loss?

 

[CT]

That's a difficult one really Pete. I have both lenses and love them both for different reasons.

Yes - the 20-200 2.8 will be as good as the 100-400 with a 1.4TC, in fact it's debatable if there's any perceptible drop in image quality at all. Even with a 2X converter, the image quality is still very good although there is a more noticeable drop in quality. This shot was with the 70-200 2.8L and 2X TC... hand held....

Have a look at my Dudly Zoo thread - the first three shots are mine with the 70-200 and the second three are Jan's with the 100-400L. The day really proved again that the 100-400L has no substitute for a great walk around one - lens solution. I had both converters with me but I couldn't be arsed to mess about changing them half the time.

I know the 100-400L gets mixed reviews and it's possible to get a bad copy, but mine's great. The speed advantage of the 70-200 is obvious, and it produces bokeh to die for, but if I had to part with just one of them it would be a very difficult choice, but that's down to me mainly being into wildlife and would depend a lot on what you mainly want the lens for.

The 70-200 will still AF on non -1 Series bodies with both converters whereas the 100-400 wont, which might be another consideration.

I've probably not helped much mate- keep both!

 

[petemc]

I'd love to keep both. I use my 100-400 maybe once every 2 months. For the majority of work I do with it I think f/2.8 would be more beneficial. I shoot people (hello fbi) more than wildlife and there's times when you really want someone to pop out from the background.

 

[CT]

I'd love to keep both. I use my 100-400 maybe once every 2 months. For the majority of work I do with it I think f/2.8 would be more beneficial. I shoot people (hello fbi) more than wildlife and there's times when you really want someone to pop out from the background.

For popping people out of the background then the 70-200 2.8 is probably the one for you, it does that beautifully, and without shoving the camera up people's noses.

 

[natjag]

I think after your discussion on the wedding thread, you should just go for it. You were almost tempted back then.
I once spoke to a canon guy, as at the time me and other people in the room liked photographing Airplanes at events, we were asking a similar question 70-200 with 2x converter or 100-400. The canon guy said the 70-200 is far better than the 100-400 with the converter. So I eventualy got a 70-200 but not yet the converter. Don't forget with this set-up you almost have 2 more bits of glass in your bag, a 70-200 2.8 and 98-280 f4 with converter, if you got for the 2x converter 140-400 f5.6. One word of caution was to use the canon converter, otherwise you would see a drop in quality.
Hope that helps.

 

[petemc]

I was more tempted at the wedding due to fear Fear of missing shots and failing as a wedding photographer. I never needed it, well it would have been handy for the speeches as 70mm wasn't long enough so I had to stand quite close. It would have been nicer to be a bit further away.

 

[mho]

I have been in the same position and the best move was to use the 70-200 + both converters, much more flexible approach, and in my opinion you cannot tell the difference in image quality. if you buy the 2x converter get the mk2 version as its optically better than the mk1, but the 1.4x mk1 & mk2 are optically the same just the adittion of a weather seal on the mk2

 

[CT]

So much disrespect going on for the 100-400L - time for a test!

Both shots taken from a tripod with IS enabled on both lenses.
100-400L IS (at 400mm) wide open. 400 ISO

70-200 2.8L IS at 200mm with the 2X TC. 400 ISO

Both images are straight from the RAW with no sharpening. The image from the 70-200 improves by stopping down a stop which I did on this shot.

Both images will sharpen appreciably, but the 100-400L gets the nod by a good margin. The result from the 70-200 is excellent for a 2X converter shot, but to expect it to equal the 100-400 is really a bit optimistic.

 

[petemc]

Yeah that is quite noticeable. When I did Knowsley Music Festival most shots were bang on 200mm with the occasional zoom to 400 for a real close up. It was great having that ability but my perfectly composed shots were 200mm. Head, mic, bit o guitar, done. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm Maybe I'll think about it after a scotch or 5

 

[Jimmy_Lemon]

are those 100% crops CT?

 

[CT]

are those 100% crops CT?

Sorry - yep 100% crops. I'm not rubbishing the 70-200 2.8 by any means, it will out perform the 100-400 without converters, but some of the comments about it's abilities with converters are way OTT. Also the 100-400L tends to get pigeon holed as the poor man's L lens and it just doesn't deserve it's rep at all. :shrug:

 

[Cobra]

So much disrespect going on for the 100-400L - time for a test!

Both shots taken from a tripod with IS enabled on both lenses.

There is definately a differance even I can see it
( anyone wanna buy a 70-200 l is?)
Didn't I read somewhere that you are supposed to turn off the IS when tri-pod mounted as it "buggers up" ( technical term) something or other though? :shrug:

 

[photostar_1]

There is definately a differance even I can see it
( anyone wanna buy a 70-200 l is?)
Didn't I read somewhere that you are supposed to turn off the IS when tri-pod mounted as it "buggers up" ( technical term) something or other though? :shrug:

That was my understanding too.

 

[CT]

The 2nd Gen IS which any new lens will have is designed to be used on a tripod too. I rarely turn mine off and most of my stuff is off a tripod.

Don't sell your 70-200 - it's a fantastic lens with low light ability the 100-400 just doesn't have. There's no such thing as the perfect lens for all occasions which is why my bank account looks like the Bogey Man's had it!

 

[petemc]

Didn't I read somewhere that you are supposed to turn off the IS when tri-pod mounted as it "buggers up" ( technical term) something or other though? :shrug:

Dunno, never have. I took these two on a cheap £100 tripod not at all designed for a 10D + grip + 100-400 and it wasn't even mounted on the lens. IS was welcomed to get sharp shots.

 

[Cobra]

The 2nd Gen IS which any new lens will have is designed to be used on a tripod too. I rarely turn mine off and most of my stuff is off a tripod.

Don't sell your 70-200 - it's a fantastic lens with low light ability the 100-400 just doesn't have. There's no such thing as the perfect lens for all occasions which is why my bank account looks like the Bogey Man's had it!

OK thanks CT ( et al ) just foolin' about selling it. I am more than happy with it even with the 2x TC attached.
So many lenes not enough dough

 

[CT]

LOL. Even with 1st Gen IS which you might get on older lenses you can still use it on a tripod as long as you have both hands on the camera as I do when I'm tracking birds as the system still picks up enough minute movement from your hands for the IS to kick in. If you lock off the head though and use a cable release, then the system detects no movement, and you can get corrupted images which is usually like a venetian blind pattern of stripes across the frame - even damage to the IS system of the lens.

 

[Cobra]

LOL. Even with 1st Gen IS which you might get on older lenses you can still use it on a tripod as long as you have both hands on the camera as I do when I'm tracking birds as the system still picks up enough minute movement from your hands for the IS to kick in. If you lock off the head though and use a cable release, then the system detects no movement, and you can get corrupted images which is usually like a venetian blind pattern of stripes across the frame - even damage to the IS system of the lens.

Thanks for clearing that up

 

[walls]

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml with a 2X but perhaps an indication

 

[petemc]

So the answer is yes I probably should and I can get usable results with the TC but it won't be *as* sharp. However, if I went out to an event I probably wouldn't take both lenses if I had them. I'd grab the 70-200 every time for f/2.8. I wouldn't want all that weight and of course its easier to put a TC on than swap those big lenses over.

 

[mho]

Its all well and good getting hung up on 100 % crops and pixel peeping if thats your thing but get them printed, thats real life not looking at shots at 100% on a computer monitor.

 

[Darryn]

If you really want to, you can drive the 67mile each way to borrow my 70-200f2.8IS+1.4xTC your more than welcome, i wont be needing it until 8th October so you can have a play for a week or two.

 

[petemc]

I completely agree Just I can't till I've sold the 100-400 and bought the 70-200 replacement I need more alcohol

 

[CT]

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml with a 2X but perhaps an indication

Thanks for the link. That was very interesting and pretty well confirms my experiences.

 

[dod]

I actually though about selling my 100-400 last year, then took it out to a horse show. Totally changed my mind. It'll never have F2.8 but mines probably as sharp as my 70-200, don't think I could bring myself to get rid of it now.

 

[CT]

I actually prefer the push/pull zoom too - very fast in use.

 

[Johnny1982]

So much disrespect going on for the 100-400L - time for a test!

Both shots taken from a tripod with IS enabled on both lenses.
100-400L IS (at 400mm) wide open. 400 ISO

70-200 2.8L IS at 200mm with the 2X TC. 400 ISO

Both images are straight from the RAW with no sharpening. The image from the 70-200 improves by stopping down a stop which I did on this shot.

Both images will sharpen appreciably, but the 100-400L gets the nod by a good margin. The result from the 70-200 is excellent for a 2X converter shot, but to expect it to equal the 100-400 is really a bit optimistic.

Its important to know that this is a 2x converter which is well known to drop quality by huge margain. The 1.4x is praised. I believe it would be on a par with the 100 - 400

 

[CT]

Its important to know that this is a 2x converter which is well known to drop quality by huge margain. The 1.4x is praised. I believe it would be on a par with the 100 - 400

I haven't done a test with the 1.4X TC, but I've no doubt it would equal the 100-400L or come very close.

Just to put the above test in perspective though, it's still a remarkable result for the 70-200L with a 2X converter. The image quality improves by stopping down one stop, and the Luminous Landscape test shows that stopping down a further stop would produce identical results to the 100-400L. The point though is that the 70-200L would be at an effective f11 - 2 stops slower than the 100-400L to obtain the same quality, which somewhat limits its usablity in all but the best light.

Still a tremendous result though - many people wouldn't advocate using a converter with a zoom lens at all, which shows how lens technology has advanced.

 

[CT]

Here you go Pete, I might as well finish the job and do the same test with the 1.4 TC.

Again the shots are off a tripod and at 400 ISO -straight from the RAW with no sharpening applied and IS enabled on both lenses.

70-200 2.8L with the 1.4TC (280mm) and F4 (wide open)

70-200 2.8L with the 1.4TC (280mm) and stopped down to F5.6

100-400L at 280mm and F5.6 (wide open)

Again a tremendous result, but the 100-400L produces the sharper image, as you should expect. Both lenses are compromised from the start by being zooms anyway so to expect to stick a converter behind either of them and expect one to outshine the other when they're both L quality zooms is rather unrealistic.

Would I use the 70-200 with the 1.4TC for it's 1 stop speed advantage wide open over the 100-400? - Hell yes, if it meant the difference between getting a shot or not.

Nothing's really changed, the bar has been lifted, but use a converter when you have to, and preferably behind a prime lens.

 

[petemc]

Yeah its quite obvious that the 100-400 is sharper in those shots. Any chance of seeing the full image, not at 100%? Prints and web shots aren't at 100% so it would be nice to see how they compare at that size. I'm guessing its hardly noticeable?

 

[CT]

Absolutely right Pete - this is an out and out quality test, at smaller repro sizes, the difference should be minimal. I'll stick some full frame ones up. Obviously though if you were interpolating images upwards to meet image library QC, it's a whole different matter.

 

[Darryn]

WOW CT, im really shocked by the quality your 100-400 produces. Mine was razor sharp on my 20D, but pretty pathetic on my 1dmkII.

 

[CT]

WOW CT, im really shocked by the quality your 100-400 produces. Mine was razor sharp on my 20D, but pretty pathetic on my 1dmkII.

These are all taken on the 1DMK2n. In fairness, I do believe it's entirely possible to get a bad copy of the lens which is probably why it gets such mixed reviews. :shrug:

 

[petemc]

Obviously though if you were interpolating images upwards to meet image library QC, it's a whole different matter.

How so?

 

[CT]

Here you go Pete - full frame versions of the above, all in the same order as above. Normally I'd sharpen images after reducing, but I've left them unsharpened.

 

[petemc]

So yeah, hardly noticeable in the last 2 shots. I think, probably just me, the first does appear to be that tiny bit softer but you'd hardly bin the lens over it.

 

[CT]

How so?

Well you'd normally be starting from a full frame image to try to hit 50mb so if it looks iffy at 1:1 by the time you've upsized it it's going to look worse, and libraries specify no sharpening.

 

[CT]

So yeah, hardly noticeable in the last 2 shots. I think, probably just me, the first does appear to be that tiny bit softer but you'd hardly bin the lens over it.

Indeed - and of course you'd sharpen anyway.