The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife

[neuroanatomist]

I am in the process of making the same decision myself.  I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm.  My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo.  I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use.  If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).

Ok, I've given the 70-200 II + 2xIII a shakedown for routine use, and I'm keeping the 100-400 (for now...if I'm $1K shy of the funds for the 300/2.8 II, it'll go, or if there's an updated 100-400). 

The IQ is fine, there are two issues for me. The first is handling - the combo is not very convenient to carry.  I normally retract the 100-400, the push-pull means racking it out is very fast, and I do that automatically as I raise the camera.  The 70-200 + 2x is front-heavy, and also doesn't balance well on the BR strap, so it bounces around more.  I can balance it by sliding the lens plate to the opposite end, but that defeats the anti-twist (not a big deal, it didn't twist anyway), but also means it has to be loosened and moved again to unmount the lens, else the plate hits the body.

The other issue was the AF - the combo is slower than the 100-400, noticeable when it racks out to infinity hunting...and it seemed to hunt more often. The 70-200+2x did fine in good light, but in poorer light with a complex subject (bird in tree branches) or backlit subject, it would hunt more than the 100-400, and sometimes miss focus locking at all, where the 100-400 would have often locked.  Those are situations where the 100-400 has some problems, but the 70-200 + 2x was worse.

[DaveMiko]

I am in the process of making the same decision myself.  I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm.  My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo.  I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use.  If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).

Ok, I've given the 70-200 II + 2xIII a shakedown for routine use, and I'm keeping the 100-400 (for now...if I'm $1K shy of the funds for the 300/2.8 II, it'll go, or if there's an updated 100-400). 

The IQ is fine, there are two issues for me. The first is handling - the combo is not very convenient to carry.  I normally retract the 100-400, the push-pull means racking it out is very fast, and I do that automatically as I raise the camera.  The 70-200 + 2x is front-heavy, and also doesn't balance well on the BR strap, so it bounces around more.  I can balance it by sliding the lens plate to the opposite end, but that defeats the anti-twist (not a big deal, it didn't twist anyway), but also means it has to be loosened and moved again to unmount the lens, else the plate hits the body.

The other issue was the AF - the combo is slower than the 100-400, noticeable when it racks out to infinity hunting...and it seemed to hunt more often. The 70-200+2x did fine in good light, but in poorer light with a complex subject (bird in tree branches) or backlit subject, it would hunt more than the 100-400, and sometimes miss focus locking at all, where the 100-400 would have often locked.  Those are situations where the 100-400 has some problems, but the 70-200 + 2x was worse.

These are the same problems I have with my combo 70-200 f2.8 IS II+2x extender Mk III, so, just as you, I plan on keeping my 100-400 around.

[dufflover]

Cool good to know my experiences are experienced by others as well then! (I often read more about how it's better in every way including the AF)

[GMCPhotographics]

I am in the process of making the same decision myself.  I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm.  My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo.  I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use.  If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).

Ok, I've given the 70-200 II + 2xIII a shakedown for routine use, and I'm keeping the 100-400 (for now...if I'm $1K shy of the funds for the 300/2.8 II, it'll go, or if there's an updated 100-400). 

The IQ is fine, there are two issues for me. The first is handling - the combo is not very convenient to carry.  I normally retract the 100-400, the push-pull means racking it out is very fast, and I do that automatically as I raise the camera.  The 70-200 + 2x is front-heavy, and also doesn't balance well on the BR strap, so it bounces around more.  I can balance it by sliding the lens plate to the opposite end, but that defeats the anti-twist (not a big deal, it didn't twist anyway), but also means it has to be loosened and moved again to unmount the lens, else the plate hits the body.

The other issue was the AF - the combo is slower than the 100-400, noticeable when it racks out to infinity hunting...and it seemed to hunt more often. The 70-200+2x did fine in good light, but in poorer light with a complex subject (bird in tree branches) or backlit subject, it would hunt more than the 100-400, and sometimes miss focus locking at all, where the 100-400 would have often locked.  Those are situations where the 100-400 has some problems, but the 70-200 + 2x was worse.

I think individual lens variation might be the key point here. No two lenses are the same unfortunatly. The AF on my old 400mm f5.6 L was slightly better than with my 70-200 LIS II and a 2x mkII. But, it wasn't enough to justify owning both. So I sold the 400mm f5.6 L to fund a different lens purchase.

[greger]

I am beginning to think the 2X extender is a thing to be used if it means getting a pic or not. The 1.4 dose not degrade
the pic where the 2X can. I think when the 100-400 is upgraded it will sell better than vs 1 which sells quite well now.
I will probably upgrade to vs ll when it won't cost me too much to trade in my lens for the new one. 

[Krob78]

I am in the process of making the same decision myself.  I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm.  My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo.  I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use.  If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).

Ok, I've given the 70-200 II + 2xIII a shakedown for routine use, and I'm keeping the 100-400 (for now...if I'm $1K shy of the funds for the 300/2.8 II, it'll go, or if there's an updated 100-400). 

The IQ is fine, there are two issues for me. The first is handling - the combo is not very convenient to carry.  I normally retract the 100-400, the push-pull means racking it out is very fast, and I do that automatically as I raise the camera.  The 70-200 + 2x is front-heavy, and also doesn't balance well on the BR strap, so it bounces around more.  I can balance it by sliding the lens plate to the opposite end, but that defeats the anti-twist (not a big deal, it didn't twist anyway), but also means it has to be loosened and moved again to unmount the lens, else the plate hits the body.

The other issue was the AF - the combo is slower than the 100-400, noticeable when it racks out to infinity hunting...and it seemed to hunt more often. The 70-200+2x did fine in good light, but in poorer light with a complex subject (bird in tree branches) or backlit subject, it would hunt more than the 100-400, and sometimes miss focus locking at all, where the 100-400 would have often locked.  Those are situations where the 100-400 has some problems, but the 70-200 + 2x was worse.

Agreed!  My 100-400 is sitting quite comfortably in my bag right now with no worries other than will she be upgraded for the Ver. II?  I go to it 75% more than I do my 70-200 II right now and have ever since grabbing the 5D III last year. 

When I had my 7D I seemed to use my 70-200 II moreso than the 100-400.  Not so much anymore!  I've even thought of letting the 70-200 II go, in order to assist with funding a 300 f/2.8 or the new 500...

[mackguyver]

I agree with everyone on the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III.  It's a great combo when you want to travel light, but not something you'd want to rely on as your standard set up.  All of the 70-200s, esp. the 4 IS & 2.8 IS II, go extremely well with the 1.4x, but the 2x adds a lot of length and makes for an awkward set up.

My current wildlife set up of the 70-200 f2.8 II, 300 f2.8 II IS, and both Mk III extenders is a dream (5 years in the making) and I typically have the 1.4x on the 70-200 and the 2x on the 300 when I'm out shooting.  This set up gives me so much flexibility with only two lenses:
70-200
98-280
300
140-400
420
600

The 100-400 + 1.4x gives you similar range if you're looking for small & compact, but you give up speed & quality.

[nc0b]

Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6.  I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.

[WPJ]

Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6.  I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.

sucking air into your camera body? Do tell how?

[DaveMiko]

Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6.  I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.

Have you actually tested for yourself the 100-400 mounted on any DLSR or are you just conjecturing, based on hearsay "evidence"? I've used my 100-400 for more than 3 years (4 years in 2014) in all sorts of environments, dusty and less dusty, such as, deserts, mountain, wetland, wildlife reserve, savannah, steppes and never had any issues with it causing dust/dirt to accumulate on the sensors of my 5D Mark III and my ex-7D (I sold it). I also used it recently mounted on my 1DX, which I purchased before going on a safari trip in Kenya. I failed to notice any issues with dust settling on the 1DX's sensor.

[unfocused]

Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6.  I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.

Have you actually tested for yourself the 100-400 mounted on any DLSR or are you just conjecturing, based on hearsay "evidence"? I've used my 100-400 for more than 3 years (4 years in 2014) in all sorts of environments, dusty and less dusty, such as, deserts, mountain, wetland, wildlife reserve, savannah, steppes and never had any issues with it causing dust/dirt to accumulate on the sensors of my 5D Mark III and my ex-7D (I sold it). I also used it recently mounted on my 1DX, which I purchased before going on a safari trip in Kenya. I failed to notice any issues with dust settling on the 1DX's sensor.

There have been lots of discussions about this. Consensus seems to be it's an internet myth. The push-pull design seems like it should suck air into the lens, but there is little to no evidence it is any worse than a twist zoom. It has been pointed out that no lens can form a perfect vacuum, or else it would be impossible to zoom.

sucking air into your camera body? Do tell how?

Yeah, I'm wondering about that too. Usually, people claim it sucks air into the lens. (see above)

[WPJ]

Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6.  I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.

Have you actually tested for yourself the 100-400 mounted on any DLSR or are you just conjecturing, based on hearsay "evidence"? I've used my 100-400 for more than 3 years (4 years in 2014) in all sorts of environments, dusty and less dusty, such as, deserts, mountain, wetland, wildlife reserve, savannah, steppes and never had any issues with it causing dust/dirt to accumulate on the sensors of my 5D Mark III and my ex-7D (I sold it). I also used it recently mounted on my 1DX, which I purchased before going on a safari trip in Kenya. I failed to notice any issues with dust settling on the 1DX's sensor.

There have been lots of discussions about this. Consensus seems to be it's an internet myth. The push-pull design seems like it should suck air into the lens, but there is little to no evidence it is any worse than a twist zoom. It has been pointed out that no lens can form a perfect vacuum, or else it would be impossible to zoom.

sucking air into your camera body? Do tell how?

Yeah, I'm wondering about that too. Usually, people claim it sucks air into the lens. (see above)

thanks unfocused, again we have run into the internet smack which cannot be backed up by facts.  One day tye internet was extremely useful now nt so much....more like a public bitch session .....hahhaha..

enjoy the night everyone..

[candc]

logic would say that non extending type zooms are more resistant to dust entering than pumper/extending types. although this may be true i think that in practice it is when you are changing lenses that you get dust in the camera. although air is pumped in and out like a bellows the seals seam to keep the dust out. i still like non extending types but i wouldn't worry about it too much as long as the tolerances and fit are good.

[canon1dxman]

I bought a 100-400 way back in 2005 and it has been on countless safaris since. Used on 2 x 1D, 7D and 1Dx. Never had an issue with dust or anything else. I did actually sell it this year when I bought the new Sigma Sport 120-300. If the mk 2 version eventually appears, I imagine ordering that but in the meantime, I might just buy another used example as it was so convenient. I have a 70-200/II plus converters but there is something nice about that old lump of a lens.

[mrsfotografie]

I am in the process of making the same decision myself.  I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm.  My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo.  I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use.  If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).

Ok, I've given the 70-200 II + 2xIII a shakedown for routine use, and I'm keeping the 100-400 (for now...if I'm $1K shy of the funds for the 300/2.8 II, it'll go, or if there's an updated 100-400). 

The IQ is fine, there are two issues for me. The first is handling - the combo is not very convenient to carry.  I normally retract the 100-400, the push-pull means racking it out is very fast, and I do that automatically as I raise the camera.  The 70-200 + 2x is front-heavy, and also doesn't balance well on the BR strap, so it bounces around more.  I can balance it by sliding the lens plate to the opposite end, but that defeats the anti-twist (not a big deal, it didn't twist anyway), but also means it has to be loosened and moved again to unmount the lens, else the plate hits the body.

The other issue was the AF - the combo is slower than the 100-400, noticeable when it racks out to infinity hunting...and it seemed to hunt more often. The 70-200+2x did fine in good light, but in poorer light with a complex subject (bird in tree branches) or backlit subject, it would hunt more than the 100-400, and sometimes miss focus locking at all, where the 100-400 would have often locked.  Those are situations where the 100-400 has some problems, but the 70-200 + 2x was worse.

Agreed!  My 100-400 is sitting quite comfortably in my bag right now with no worries other than will she be upgraded for the Ver. II?  I go to it 75% more than I do my 70-200 II right now and have ever since grabbing the 5D III last year. 

When I had my 7D I seemed to use my 70-200 II moreso than the 100-400.  Not so much anymore!  I've even thought of letting the 70-200 II go, in order to assist with funding a 300 f/2.8 or the new 500...

Thanks, this is interesting to me because I'm about to get a 5DMkIII to replace my 7D and say farewell to the possibility of using a crop sensor to fake 'reach'.

I'm trying to consider the repercussions this will have on my lens collection and possible future upgrade path. and it does get expensive to go beyond 400 mm on full frame and retain good image quality especially without carrying around monstrous lenses... so far it seems the 300 f/2.8 + 2x TC is a really great/best option, but I may have my eye on the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports lens if that plays well with teleconverters. Let's hope I find I can live without 400mm+