canon 100-400 L or 70-200 + TC?

New 70-200L 2.8 Mk2 plus Mk3 extender runs it very close indeed.

Go to TheDigitalPicture and load up any combination of comparisons you like, including Mk2 and Mk3 extenders side by side. Here, this link should take you straight to it. Toggle on the little arrow in the middle http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

AF speed is an interesting question. Extenders increase it, but then the Mk2 lens is so fast anyway... If I was betting, I would guess the 70-200 plus Mk3 extender (completely new design, better in every respect) would still be faster than the naked 100-400L.
 
If you are considering the 70-200mm F2.8 II lens with mk then as Richard said they are very close. In that decision I would take the 70-200mm over the 100-400mm. With 2x It gives you a good 400mm F5.6 lens with better IS than the 100-400mm - and in addition you have an excellent 70-200mm F2.8 as well. Sharpness is not quite as good with 2x as the 100-400mm so if you plan on spending all your time at 400mm then you should bear that in mind too

But if you are looking at the MK1 version of the lens, forget it. I had one and it was terrible - not a patch on the quality from the 100-400mm. That lens does not peform well with a 2x converter.

What will you be shooting mainly?
 
Last edited:
Cost factor as well considering a f/2.8 mkII plus TC would be about double the price of the 100-400mm

You could get the f/4 IS version which would still AF with a 1.4x TC, but that still doesn't give you the 400mm reach
 
Last edited:
There's also the 70-300mm L which may be worth considering. With a 2x, that would give you up to 600mm.
 
Hmmm, the 70-300 is f/5.6 at the long end, so wouldn't perform as well with the TC as the 70-200.
 
sthwild said:
thanks guys. i was thinking about shooting mainly wildlife, slow birds etc.
intersting alternative: 70-300 L + TC. I wonder how this would be performing in terms of IQ?
Click to expand...

It's not compatible with the canon TC's possibly works with kenko ones but no one seems to be able to confirm this.

Also, the new 200-400 with built in extender is a completely different class of lens.

It'll be priced higher than it's closest rival, the nikkor 200-400 f/4.

It's definitely not a 100-400 replacement ;).
 
WinstonSmith said:
There's also the 70-300mm L which may be worth considering. With a 2x, that would give you up to 600mm.
Click to expand...

And no autofocus throughout the range

Unless you get a Kenko DGX converter - then you will get poor AF throughout the range
 
I have the 100-400 and a 70-200MkII and TC1.4III. Never went for 2X TC as no one has ever had high remarks about it but I do see Pros use it with long primes. For best IQ a 70-200 is a superb bit of kit. I would also say the 200-400 will be a excellent lens when we get it in market and it's 4.0 for the whole range. The 100-400 is dated and while I enjoy the use of it in my bag it does not have the IQ I expect from the 200-400 or that I get from the 70-200. I never find myself using the 100-200 range of the 100-400 only the longer end of the lens. I would not get a 70-200 4.0 with TC you will not be impressed as you'll never be able to achieve any sort of shutter speed that can produce sharp images. You'll be tied to a tripod taking pix of things that do not move to get any thing sharp.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned 2.8 MkII with TC III is the better option of the two you are considering.

is 400 prime a possibility? Affordable second hand......
 
DucDuc said:
I would not get a 70-200 4.0 with TC you will not be impressed as you'll never be able to achieve any sort of shutter speed that can produce sharp images. You'll be tied to a tripod taking pix of things that do not move to get any thing sharp.
Click to expand...

70-200mm F4 IS + 1.4x makes a very compact and usable 280mm F5.6. Hardly tripod worthy tbh.

OK, a 2x is different there - but then again all but 1 series users loose AF with a 2x converter on an F4 lens anyway.
 
DucDuc said:
I have the 100-400 and a 70-200MkII and TC1.4III. Never went for 2X TC as no one has ever had high remarks about it but I do see Pros use it with long primes. For best IQ a 70-200 is a superb bit of kit. I would also say the 200-400 will be a excellent lens when we get it in market and it's 4.0 for the whole range. The 100-400 is dated and while I enjoy the use of it in my bag it does not have the IQ I expect from the 200-400 or that I get from the 70-200. I never find myself using the 100-200 range of the 100-400 only the longer end of the lens. I would not get a 70-200 4.0 with TC you will not be impressed as you'll never be able to achieve any sort of shutter speed that can produce sharp images. You'll be tied to a tripod taking pix of things that do not move to get any thing sharp.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned 2.8 MkII with TC III is the better option of the two you are considering.

is 400 prime a possibility? Affordable second hand......
Click to expand...

cheers Thomas.
I was considering prime 400 f/5.6 but sometimes when birds come closer I might need something around 200 or 300mm. its a bloody hard choice. I know if I buy one lens I will be unable to buy another one for next 2 or 3 years(unless I'll sell first one) so need to make wise decision:thinking:
 
I have the Mk1 70-200 and x2, it's slow and on a sunny day can be good. IQ in low light is pretty poor, images are soft which I think is quite common.

I would go 100-400.
 
sthwild said:
cheers Thomas.
I was considering prime 400 f/5.6 but sometimes when birds come closer I might need something around 200 or 300mm. its a bloody hard choice. I know if I buy one lens I will be unable to buy another one for next 2 or 3 years(unless I'll sell first one) so need to make wise decision:thinking:
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the 70-200L IS f/2.8 MKII + 2x MKIII extender but I use to own a 70-200L IS F/4 _ 1.4x MKII extender.
Although it's a fantastic lens, with the extender I still found the range wasn't enough for small birds.
I sold both and bought a 100-400L and I believe that I made a wise choice.
The 70-200L IS f/2.8 and 2x MKIII extender is a very expensive combination and although I would expect better IQ seeing as both are new products, personally I don't think the expense is justifiable unless you are not bothered by the cost.
 
Depends what you shoot. If it's more generally < 200mm, I'd go for a 70-200 f2.8 + TC, if it's more at the long end, I'd go for the 100-400.
 
I've been using my 100-400 for a few weeks now and I'm still in awe of it :love:

It's been getting a workout at a couple of Rugby matches so I'd say I've probably used it's full focal range pretty much wide open the whole time.

I'll try and put some examples up later when I get home but I've found even cropped images wide open at 400m still look good (although they may need a little more tweeking in PP).

PS...... Here's a thread I started when I first got the lens..... http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=306518
 
Last edited:
sthwild said:
did anybody tried 100-400 with 1.4 TC? as Richard suggested i've checked thedigitalpicture for sharpness and it looks good to me.
Click to expand...

I've tried my 100-400 with the Canon 1.4 II TC on the back. The viewfinder did seem noticeably darker, but it still produced great images.
 
Chilos said:
I've tried my 100-400 with the Canon 1.4 II TC on the back. The viewfinder did seem noticeably darker, but it still produced great images.
Click to expand...

too slow and only manual focus = not for me, but it does "work". Although I will say that when I used this combo at Oulton park I used live view and zoomed in to focus and came away with a couple good images, not great but good. I would say it was not a normal set up or shoot but I got a couple images during the masters event last month
 
HoppyUK said:
New 70-200L 2.8 Mk2 plus Mk3 extender runs it very close indeed.

Go to TheDigitalPicture and load up any combination of comparisons you like, including Mk2 and Mk3 extenders side by side. Here, this link should take you straight to it. Toggle on the little arrow in the middle http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

AF speed is an interesting question. Extenders increase it, but then the Mk2 lens is so fast anyway... If I was betting, I would guess the 70-200 plus Mk3 extender (completely new design, better in every respect) would still be faster than the naked 100-400L.
Click to expand...

Really?
 
And maybe it matters if you can do the push/pull focus if the 100-400 rather than just the twist if the 70-200.
 
DucDuc said:
too slow and only manual focus = not for me, but it does "work". Although I will say that when I used this combo at Oulton park I used live view and zoomed in to focus and came away with a couple good images, not great but good. I would say it was not a normal set up or shoot but I got a couple images during the masters event last month
Click to expand...

I was just taking general shots, nothing like motorsport where speed was an issue. I've not tried the tape trick yet, might give it a go next time.
 
Not sure I'm as qualified as some of the others to offer my opinion here but last year I spent some time with a professional wildlife photographer friend of mine and he got me hooked on the 70 - 200 f2.8L lens with either a 1.4 or 2 tc. I now have this lens and wouldn't change it for the world. My dad has the 100 - 400 L lens. It is a fantastic lens but there isn't much that would draw me away from my 70 - 200. I took my lens on safari with me and with the 1.4 tc it didn't disappoint at all

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums
 
Chilos said:
I was just taking general shots, nothing like motorsport where speed was an issue. I've not tried the tape trick yet, might give it a go next time.
Click to expand...

Be interesting to see how you get on with that - taped extender on a 100-400L. 40D doesn't take well to it.

Problem with the taping pins thing is it doesn't change the physical size of the aperture that the lens has to focus through, which is why Canon opts to switch it out. Some cameras can still make it work, if not very well. My 40D with that lens and a taped Kenko x1.4 was hopeless.
 
I already own the 70-200 f2.8 IS and was considering getting a 100-400L. Think it's worth it? Or just go for a TC?
 
draiman said:
I already own the 70-200 f2.8 IS and was considering getting a 100-400L. Think it's worth it? Or just go for a TC?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're using it for. The 100 - 400 isn't the greatest for motorsport photography (for argument sake) but is great for 'zooming' in on wildlife. If that makes sense

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums
 
draiman said:
I already own the 70-200 f2.8 IS and was considering getting a 100-400L. Think it's worth it? Or just go for a TC?
Click to expand...

As well as the 70-200 ?. From a personal perspective I would think the TC would be better otherwise you are either going to have less flexibility or be carrying two very big lenses with you.
 
I was talking about as well as keeping the 70-200mm. I would probably only take out whichever lens suited the circumstances. It'd be mostly for shooting wildlife, nothing particularly fast moving.

I had considered getting a prime, but don't like the idea of not having any scope for zoom at these kind of focal lengths.
 
Well, I think the 100-400 it is then. Picture quality is the most important thing to me at the end of the day. If I have to carry two big weights around sometimes then so be it.

Thanks for your help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top