70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender III vs. 100 - 400 L // Comparison?

[mhvogel.de]

Hey Guys:

I do have the 70-200 2.8 L IS II (ff-bodies inly) and am thinking about the following 2 options to extend my tele-range a little:
a: buy an Extender (Canon 1.4x III, maybe the 2.0x) t.b. used with my 70-200
or
b: buy a new lens: the Canon 100 - 400mm L

Does anyone have a quality-comparison (test- pics or data) of these two options.

And:
Yes, I know, that 200mm x 1.4 is less then 400.
No, it's not a budget-issue.
No I do not look for another option then stated above.

I do want the better image-quality!
Sharpness & Details are critical, potenital vignetting not that much.

Profound advises or links to data sources are welcome, thank you in advance.

[canonwhore]

I've got the 70-200 2.8 L is II + 2.0x III extender. Yes the quality does go down a little and AF does slow down a bit. I have never used the 100-400 L so I can't compare. Here is a link to some shots I've taken with this combination so you can compare (I should also mention I scaled down these photos so quality is not as good as the original files).

70-200 with 2.0 extender
http://www.panoramio.com/user/54435/tags/Canon%20Extender%20%20EF%202%20III

[lol]

This is a question I asked myself in a slightly different way , but one possible direct comparison is here. You can play with the settings a bit depending on the scenario you want to model. At a quick glance, there's not a lot in it comparing 280mm f/4-f/5.6 to 300mm f/5.6, but at 400mm each the 100-400L is more clearly better. However they used extender II not III so I don't know if that will make any significant real world difference.

[Canihaspicture]

I have a 70-200mm IS II and a 2x III quality takes a pretty large hit. Basically it looks like my picture came from a crop sensor instead of full frame. It's not very sharp. I don't own a 100-400 because I'm waiting for the replacement but everything I've seen says it is better at 400mm. However, it's far more convenient to carry a 70-200 with the extender than two large/heavy telephoto lenses.

It's fine if you don't pixel peep. if you do ... here is a 100 percent crop, you can see a specular highlight on the button with no color fringing, this is also through a chain link fence. Lighting was pretty harsh.

[tomscott]

I have the 70-200mm f2.8 non IS and the 2x extender mark II and yes it needs some sharpening but i think the quality for price/weight/handling is fantastic. Its not a perfect set up but i find very useable, most of my images go to press with no problems. The 100-400 is a great lens but i find that the 70-200mm with a 2x extender a better partnership, if you want 2.8 its there if you need more range wack the extender on, stop the lens down to F8 and its wonderful, its not too sharp at 5.6 but abit of post processing works wonders. Carrying both lenses around would be a pain in the ass in my opinion. I prefer the zoom ring on the 70-200mm rather than the push pull. Plus on a crop body the lens is a 640mm lens with the 2x extender and for that range with a small decrease in quality is worth it for me.

In a perfect world you would buy a 400mm 2.8 but they are heavy expensive and i find zooms are alot more useful when shooting for press. Also i have the Non IS and still have no problem with blur etc, its relying on skill not tech, IS is great but you pay a huge premium for it.

Tomscott

[tomscott]

I have a 70-200mm IS II and a 2x III quality takes a pretty large hit. Basically it looks like my picture came from a crop sensor instead of full frame. It's not very sharp. I don't own a 100-400 because I'm waiting for the replacement but everything I've seen says it is better at 400mm. However, it's far more convenient to carry a 70-200 with the extender than two large/heavy telephoto lenses.

It's fine if you don't pixel peep. if you do ... here is a 100 percent crop, you can see a specular highlight on the button with no color fringing, this is also through a chain link fence. Lighting was pretty harsh.

What F stop did you use here? looks like its quite open to me, especially in good light. Extenders work much better if you step it down.

[Canihaspicture]

F/11 (keep in mind it's a 100% crop)

[tomscott]

Ye true, tbf your probs better looking at a 66% crop its more realistic of the quality of your print. Mine are alittle soft because im using an older camera, trusty 40D waiting for a new 7D to get a decent upgrade.

[bchernicoff]

I had a 100-400 at the same time as 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender II and did a direct comparison at 400mm. Yes, sharpness takes a hit, but considering the cost, weight, and space required to keep that lens around just for additional sharpness in the 200-400 range, I decided to sell it. I asked myself, "Am I more likely to bring one lens and through the extender in my bag, or schlep two lenses?" The answer depends on what is being shot. I only took the 100-400 to the airshow. I brought the 70-200 + extender to a pro motocross race....most of the time, the extender stayed off, but I did get some great shots with it on.  I am at work now, but can update with images tonight.  In the end I sold the 100-400. Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic lens.

[neuroanatomist]

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and the Mk II versions of both 1.4x and 2x extenders, and also the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.  Both 70-200mm + extender combinations produce decent images, but the IQ is better with the 100-400mm.  My primary use for the 70-200 + extenders is when I want to shoot in the rain, since the combination on my 7D is weather-sealed, whereas the 100-400mm is not.

You can compare sharpness here (link goes to the 70-200 II + 2x III vs. 100-400mm @ 400mm, but you can vary that with the popups menus for focal length and aperture).

[jcns]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

[jcns]

if it's an option for you, rent as needed.
I bought a used 100-400 for a great deal so I don't mind that it comes out to play only 3-5 times a year sometimes even less; it has not come out of the bag and box not even once in 2011.

[KyleSTL]

Here is the TDP link to 70-200 IS II + 2x III:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

And here is 2x II vs. 2x III
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Looks like the 100-400mm is slightly sharper, but the TDP test is very harsh, and I believe the differences between the two are pretty negligible.  Your opinion may differ.  The price, weight and size would be a determining factor if it was my choice (again, your priorities may be different).  And remember you're looking at 100% crops of the center, mid-frame, and corner at TDP in a side-by-side fashion, and with similar focal lengths and f-stops I think you'd have a hard time telling the difference between the two in real-world shots.

[bchernicoff]

Here are two pictures I shot with my 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender II. These are the original jpegs from my 7D shot with the Standard picture style.

http://photogravic.com/images/race1.jpg
http://photogravic.com/images/race2.jpg

[UncleFester]

"No. It's not a budget issue."