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

[KyleSTL]

I apologize for the cynicism, but this thread has declined into hair-splitting at its finest.

100-400mm vs. 70-200 II + 2.0x III are just about equal (and I don't think there are huge IQ problems with either)

You really want quality better than that?  The 300 f2.8 and 400mm f2.8 are available (along with the 1.4x III and 2.0x III TC if you need extra reach).

That's the answer to the question.  If you want better quality, pay more and sacrifice the flexibility of a zoom.  Stop with the pedantic arguing. /rant

[1982chris911]

Some picture taken with the combination:
Taken at 400mm with 70-200mm IS2 TC x2 III

European Red Kite von 1982Chris911 (Thank you 100.000 Times) auf Flickr


At 292mm

Owl on Pole von 1982Chris911 (Thank you 100.000 Times) auf Flickr

[Edwin Herdman]

If you want better quality, pay more and sacrifice the flexibility of a zoom.  Stop with the pedantic arguing. /rant

Actually, it wasn't hair-splitting so much as completely off-topic by this point   It's a free country, though, and you don't need to tell other people what to do.  Other than that, yes, I agree that paying more is a sure way to get better quality, but there are options less expensive than going to the EF 300mm or some other prime plus a teleconverter.  It seems absurd to limit ourselves to either a $1500 lens or a $2900 lens combination ($2600-ish if you go with an older Mark II teleconverter) and then ignore the other very good options in this range before making the jump to $4000+ options.

Some picture taken with the combination:
Taken at 400mm with 70-200mm IS2 TC x2 III

Nice photos.  I'll have to see how close I come to meeting those...although the comparison won't be exact due to the differences in lenses.  (Also, while there are bald eagles very close to my location, they are behind some wire fence and that makes it hard to expose correctly - they also are farther than I can approach.)

[neuroanatomist]

If you want better quality, pay more and sacrifice the flexibility of a zoom.  Stop with the pedantic arguing. /rant

While I agree that we went a bit OT, it seems you missed the point in any case - the 70-200 II is a zoom with IQ that surpasses 4 L-series primes in it's range (85/1.2, 100/2.8, 135/2, and 200/2.8 ).  But enough.

I agree that the IQ differences between the 100-400mm and the 70-200 II + 2x are minor and likely irrelevant for real world use. But IQ isn't the whole story. The 70-200 II has terrific AF, but many people don't know that in addition to reducing max aperture by 1 or 2 stops, a TC also results in slower AF (programmed into the firmware) - 25% slower with a 1.4x and 50% slower with a 2x, and I can certainly notice the latter.

The bottom line is that TCs are best reserved for occasional use, and if you need a particular focal length, you're best served getting a lens that achieves that focal length natively.   

[KyleSTL]

Ok, now we're talking about the real difference is the lenses (not that I own either, but I'm a serial researcher in all things tech).  AF (speed and accuracy) and IS are definite ways of separating these two seemingly equal combinations of lenses.  I'm sorry I came across as bossy, but I think having a discussion of the differences in the lens performance (outside of IQ) is more reasonable than trying to find the 'sharper' of the two.  Just trying to get the conversation back on topic.  I think the 'feel' and 'intangibles' of the two options are likely to be the deciding factors, and probably renting is the best way to go to see which choice is better for you (or if either is able to suit your needs at all).

[hambergler]

wait for 200-400 F/4 L with built in 1.4x TC an option?

[sparda79]

Here a shot from this morning. 7D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II + 2x III
400mm, 1/400, ISO400, f/8, cropped & post-processed

[neuroanatomist]

Ok, now we're talking about the real difference is the lenses (not that I own either, but I'm a serial researcher in all things tech).  AF (speed and accuracy) and IS are definite ways of separating these two seemingly equal combinations of lenses.

Another practical difference (think I already mentioned this) is that the 70-200 II + TC is weather-sealed (when used with a 7D), whereas the 100-400mm lacks the mount gasket (although the switches and extending zoom/focus ring are sealed).   

[lol]

Another practical difference (think I already mentioned this) is that the 70-200 II + TC is weather-sealed (when used with a 7D), whereas the 100-400mm lacks the mount gasket (although the switches and extending zoom/focus ring are sealed).

Just to chip in there, regardless of what sealing the 100-400L has, I'd consider it unsealed as far as wet weather usage is concerned. On more than one occasion using it unprotected in persisting moderate-heavy rain, I've had water ingress probably via the pump-zoom action which re-dispersed as condensation on the elements. My fix for that was getting the 70-300L in addition and in heavy rain testing so far that has held out. I considered going the 70-200II route too, but that just seemed unnecessarily expensive for a shorter zoom range where I have no need for possible faster apertures.