Canon 100-400 vs 70-200 f2.8 with 2x TC

desantnik

desantnik

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,848
Name
Vlad
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, so I have talked down the 100-400 and I had my mind set on the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x but...

Have just been looking at a link one of you posted up which has an excellent range of ISO 12233 interactive charts giving on screen comparisons of lenses vs each other at all sorts of focal lengths and F stops....

Given that what I am looking for mainly in my next purchase is 300-400mm shots, I think the 100-400 looks considerably sharper by those charts, particularly when I compare 280/300mm at f8 or F11 which is probably where I am at with quite slow shutter speeds.

Thats the technical read out but...

Has anyone got any direct real world comparitive (sp?) experience of these two? Any comments on focus speed (bear in mind I use a 350D at the mo)

The plus side is of course that the 100-400 IS is (at least 300 quid) cheaper than a 70-200 f2.8 IS plus a 2x TC.

Given money no object and bearing in mind all I am interested in here is 280-400mm performance which of these two is the one to punt for?
 
But, worth noting that the 70-200 in the Luminous Landscape test is with the old 2x and the new one is meant to be better.

I can't compare the two as I don't have a 100-400. I went for the 70-200 and extender first and am happy enough with the results to decide that I don't need the 100-400 as well...

300 f/4L prime and 1.4x when needed would be another approach and is a peach of a lens.

Paul
 
Well I have access to and an option to buy a 300mm F4 IS for a good price... the only thing is I struggle with the prime and can't always move to the correct position to allow for fixed focal length (its motorsport I mainly do)
 
BTW thanks Grendel, that article is exactly what I was looking for, well apart from any real day to day ownership comments.
 
grumpybadger said:
But, worth noting that the 70-200 in the Luminous Landscape test is with the old 2x and the new one is meant to be better.
Click to expand...

That's a good point :)

I had a similar dilema to you a while ago when I was looking at exactly the same 2 options. After much deliberating I decided to go for the 100-400, mainly because all my research said it would give the sharpness I was looking for. I've been thrilled with it since the first shot I took with it. Some don't like to push-pull system it uses but personally I don't have a problem with it at all. HTH :)
 
cant compare the 2 as have only ever used the 100-400 really, all i can say is it delivers what i want it too :) CT has both i think, but not sure if he has done any motorsport pics with them.

Bit of a taster with the 100-400 at 400mm :)
0919-160241-01-01.jpg


Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 20D
Image Date: 2006:09:19 16:02:41
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 400.0mm
CCD Width: 4.49mm
Exposure Time: 0.0063 s (1/160)
Aperture: f/14.0
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: -1.00
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
 
Look at t5he pro's on the tracks, the 100-400mm was there main stay, more and more are swapping for the 70-200mm, with 300mm and 400mm primes, or the 1.4xTc to replace the 300mm.

The 2xtc is a little bit of the the 400mm at the long end at poor light, but id rather the better 70-200mm f2.8 a 1.4xtc and 400mm prime. Depends on you budget and how many lenses you'r prepared to carry. Personal the 2xtc was a stop gap and has worked well i think.
 
Here's another :D


Ostrich%20III.jpg
 
Totally off topic but that is a peach of a shot Grendel.:clap:
 
Thanks BB :embarrassed: :)
 
I'm looking in exactly the same direction myself, done all the research, comparison checks, upsides and down sides etc conclusion? .....................buggered if I know :bang:
 
Taken with the 100-400L at 400mm

OY8N4176-01.jpg


Taken with the 70-200 2.8L at 200mm

OY8N7011-01.jpg


The 70-200 is a recent acquisition and I haven't used it as much as I'd like yet.

It's worth remembering that the 100-400L wont AF with either converter on anything but a 1 series body while the 70-200 will AF on any Canon body with either converter.

I love the 100-400 for it's general walk round usefulness and flexibility of reach without resorting to swapping converters. Quality is good with the 1.4 converter, but I don't think you should expect too much with the 2XTC

Quality seems to vary with the 100-400 and there's no doubt it's possible to get a poor copy, but get a good one and I think you'll love it. The 100-400L is strongly rumoured to be due for replacement which might be a consideration?

Just some random thoughts which are probably no help at all. :shrug:
 
:) Er, my 100-400 does af with the 1.4 TC on a 1Ds, centre point works just dandy and pretty damn quick too....
 
:baby: oops sorry, you did say a 1 series body!!
 
If I may throw my tuppence into the thread, I bought a brand new Canon 100-400mm some time back and although the lens returned tack sharp pictures the AF was dog slow IMO. Also I didnt like the push/pull mechanism for the zoom...:(

Taking static shots as CT has taken here you won't find better and IanC has also posted a very sharp motorsport shot but my vote would go to the 70-200mm with the 2X converter any day..;)
 
busterboy said:
...my vote would go to the 70-200mm with the 2X converter any day..;)
Click to expand...

I completely agree with that one - my 70-200 & 2x is a great substitute for when I don't want to carry around too much weight - image quality remains excellent too. Good luck with your choice :thumbs:
 
I just remembered I took this one with the 70-200 2.8 and 2XTC. This is 800 ISO in crap light too so it bodes well. :)

OY8N7034-01.jpg
 
CT said:
I just remembered I took this one with the 70-200 2.8 and 2XTC. This is 800 ISO in crap light too so it bodes well. :)

I think that one has almost made my mind up (at least)
Click to expand...
 
Messiah Khan said:
Thats a lovely shot CT. What focal length was this at? Also roughly what distance were you at?
Click to expand...

It was definitely with the 2X converter and it had been raining for a couple of days so the birds were ravenous and I was able to walk up quite close so I don't think I was on full zoom. I'll see if I can find the RAW file and give you some more accurate info. My file system is erm... interesting! :D
 
Phew... found it! :D

Using the 1D MK2n:-

It was 400mm (so on full zoom)1/125th at f8 (So I'd stopped down 1 stop) 800 ISO. I reckon it was taken at around 10 feet and is quite a crop from the original but is way, way below 1:1 repoduction.

Hand held btw.
 
Some good discussion here folks, I thank you all for your input.

There clearly has to be a downside to the 100-400mm given its pricing, there is something in there which Canon must think doesnt quite cut the mustard, but looking at those ISO charts I honestly can't see it - short of a wide apperture 70-200mm, which doesn't bother me really as its only value to the shots I want are enabling me to slap a 2x TC on it :D

Something I do seem to have got the hang of though is that the resale value on Canon lenses seems pretty good, I've seen clean 2nd hand examples on ebay sell for sometimes more than you can buy them for (truly bizarre!)

So maybe I can take a punt at one and fall back to the other...

Next week I'm definitely going to try the 300mm F4 with a 1.4x as I can do that for no money outlaid :D

BTW, one last thing that showed up earlier on my quest for knowledge, a comment from DPreview:

Putting the 100-400 on the 1D Mark III (or 1D2/1D2n/1Ds2) would deactivate all cross type sensors, not even the center one left. The camera will AF but only with single directional sensors only.
Click to expand...

Any good solid ideas why that might be? I can only assume that for the extra focusing to work you need a minium apperture size of F4?
 
busterboy said:
If I may throw my tuppence into the thread, I bought a brand new Canon 100-400mm some time back and although the lens returned tack sharp pictures the AF was dog slow IMO.
Click to expand...

I'll just pick this one comment out for a personal reply though... I think this is the most damning comment I've seen against the 100-400 and very relevant to me.

The ISO charts can only show me IQ not how long it takes to get there.

Is there any kind of quantitative value for AF speed? I appreciate it can vary between camera bodies, but like for like?
 
Try hiring them. I tested both lenses before going the 70-200mm f2.8, much faster even with converter. That image posted by CT is amazing.
 
I've never found the AF slow on the 100-400L. :thinking:

I just tested the 100-400 and the 70 -200 2.8 in pretty low room light and I I'm damned if I can see any difference.:shrug:
 
CT said:
I've never found the AF slow on the 100-400L. :thinking:

I just tested the 100-400 and the 70 -200 2.8 in pretty low room light and I I'm damned if I can see any difference.:shrug:
Click to expand...

what camera tho outta interest?

I tested on the 30, just wonder if the 1 series is faster, or i tested a duff 100-400mm
 
I tested both on the 20D. Realistically I suppose the faster 2.8 aperture and more light just has to make the 70 -200 faster, but if there is a difference it isn't one that bothers me at all.

It is fair to say though that the 100-400L does vary in quality and you can get an iffy one. It's also notorious for IS failures, but touch wood I've no such problems yet.
 
Ok then fair enough, must have been duffen i tried hunted a little where the 70-200mm didnt.

With the 2xtc there both effectively f5.6 so should be equal? had heard the 100-400mm to hit or miss at times, plus the 70mm end is nice too as its short enough for the grid paddock areas, saves carrying a another shorter lens when you'l have say a 400mm in the bag.

But all our requirements are different arnt they.
 
Indeed we all have different uses. :)

I've used the 1.4 Converter with the 100-400L and it's OK, but having such a huge zoom range to begin with I don't think we should expect miracles -I certainly wouldn't expect much from it with the 2X TC. Andy Rouse is a big user of the 100-400L but he dismisses it's capability with converters pretty much out of hand.
 
Im interested to see how my soon to arrive 150mm f2.8 Sigma performs with a X2TC. Im hoping it will perform decently for garden birds etc.
 
CT said:
Indeed we all have different uses. :)

I've used the 1.4 Converter with the 100-400L and it's OK, but having such a huge zoom range to begin with I don't think we should expect miracles -I certainly wouldn't expect much from it with the 2X TC. Andy Rouse is a big user of the 100-400L but he dismisses it's capability with converters pretty much out of hand.
Click to expand...

Yeah again depends on demarnds Andy is a pro to make money therefore requires the best image to be able sell, but most ammerture togs would be quite happy with the results.

I have seen his work very good indeed, and he posts some very nice reviews up, at the end of the day though no lens plus tc will ever totally match a high quility lens designed for that range, (or is there? lol)
 
LOL A fixed focal length prime is gonna win the argument every time. :D
 
Guys, I definitely am 100% sure I cannot TC up the 100-400mm...
 
desantnik said:
Guys, I definitely am 100% sure I cannot TC up the 100-400mm...
Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'cannot'?


When i bought my 100-400L, I read, and came to the same conclusion as you. That is it is sharper than the 70-200 with any TC's, esp the 2x. I really like the 100-400 and it is probably my most used lens. I have occasionly used it with a 1.4x (for wildlife), and have been happy with the results. Sorry, but i don't know which of my shots have the 1.4TC on, as i tape the contacts to retain AF. Here's a couple of motorsport shots.

251778428_08e01c7710_o.jpg

509584837_e9fa449331_o.jpg
 
Messiah Khan said:
Im interested to see how my soon to arrive 150mm f2.8 Sigma performs with a X2TC. Im hoping it will perform decently for garden birds etc.
Click to expand...

That'll only get you 300mm though. And IME, 300mm is not long enough for garden birds, unless you can get close. I struggle with 400mm.
 
Pretty damned impressive Russ!
The conclusion I am coming to with this thread is, that its purley a matter of taste, I am certainly erring towards the 70-200 + TC's though

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top