June 20, 2018, 10:09:23 AM

Author Topic: 70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele  (Read 1214 times)

Aussie shooter

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 101
70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele
« on: May 23, 2018, 07:34:54 AM »
Looking at getting rid of the sigma 150-600 and replacing with one of these two combos  as with a trip to the Galapagos coming up weight savings are a priority. Losing some reach with the 70-200 option but getting a more versatile rig than the 100-400 and being that it will be mounted on a 7d2 I am guessing it will suffice as distance to wildlife in the Galapagos should not be an issue most of the time. Any oppinions on the best option from those who know?
Gear....Who cares. Just shoot
(just kidding) I'd love to be a gear whore but can't afford it

canon rumors FORUM

70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele
« on: May 23, 2018, 07:34:54 AM »

edoorn

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 58
Re: 70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2018, 07:50:16 AM »
from my somewhat limited experience (only used the 70-200 once with that converter), I think the 100-400 with 1.4 converter yields the best results.

PCM-madison

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
Re: 70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2018, 09:51:22 AM »
I've tried the 2X iii on the 70-200mm F2.8 IS ii, and I was not really satisfied with the combination. For me, the only lens I regularly use with the 2X is the 300mm F2.8 IS ii. As far as the 100-400mk2 with 1.4X iii on the 7Dmk2, I've tried this combo several times and my keeper rate was unacceptably low. I don't think this is a problem with my copies of the 100-400mk2 or 1.4X iii because when I later got the 5DS R and used the 100-400mk2 with 1.4X iii, it has given great results. Your copy of the 7Dmk2 may give better results. I have not tried to AFMA my 7Dmk2 +100-400mk2 with 1.4X iii because I don't really have a good setup for such a long lens combination.

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6875
  • USM > STM
Re: 70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2018, 12:08:01 PM »
+1 on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II + 2x being less than ideal -- a native 100-400L II would mop the floor with it at 400mm.

But for this photographer who is capped at 200mm (that 70-200 is my longest lens), having the 2x option is a lovely one for the once-a-year boat ride with the in-laws.  :D

But if you regularly bird, wildlife, etc. surely you should get a proper longer instrument that doesn't require the use of a 2x.  The 100-400L II is certainly the right call until this supposed 'affordable long zoom' arrives from Canon, but you can also look at the 400 f/5.6L if you want to save some money (no zoom, no IS, but it's cheaper).

- A

Mikehit

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2533
Re: 70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2018, 12:29:20 PM »
I know Art Morris looks at the 70-200 f2.8 with 2x tele as a decent kit for bird photography - but make sure you get the mkiii version.
The 100-400 is no bigger but with a 1.4 you get 560mm if you do need it. The 100-400 also has a significantly shorter minimum focus distance.

A lot depends on if, after the Galapogos, you will find the f2.8 really useful; also if the reasons you bought the 150-600 in the first place are still relevant.

These links may help:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

https://www.grantatkinson.com/blog/compared-the-canon-ef100-400l-and-the-canon-ef-70-200-f2-8l-is-ii-plus-2x-ef-iii-extender

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/126560-Canon-70-200-2-8-II-w-1-4TC-or-100-400-II-not-just-birds
 

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6875
  • USM > STM
Re: 70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2018, 12:41:42 PM »
Right -- I didn't mention that I was using the 2x III teleconverter.

Also, TDP has combinations of all sorts of these bodies + lenses + TCs at the IQ tool I posted earlier, including (if you choose the 1Ds3 as your body) multiple copies of each lens to compare.

But a test chart only tells you so much.  AF speed (esp. if teleconvertered) can vary quite a bit.  I'd rely on the birders/wildlifers here as well as the various sites that specialize in those types of photography.

- A

Random Orbits

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2044
Re: 70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2018, 01:30:22 PM »
I've tried the 2X iii on the 70-200mm F2.8 IS ii, and I was not really satisfied with the combination. For me, the only lens I regularly use with the 2X is the 300mm F2.8 IS ii. As far as the 100-400mk2 with 1.4X iii on the 7Dmk2, I've tried this combo several times and my keeper rate was unacceptably low. I don't think this is a problem with my copies of the 100-400mk2 or 1.4X iii because when I later got the 5DS R and used the 100-400mk2 with 1.4X iii, it has given great results. Your copy of the 7Dmk2 may give better results. I have not tried to AFMA my 7Dmk2 +100-400mk2 with 1.4X iii because I don't really have a good setup for such a long lens combination.

It is likely a AFMA issue.  I had near 0 entries for AFMA for bare lens, but had a fairly large offset when the 2x was attached.  The 700-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2x is similar in IQ to original 100-400.  The 100-400 II is much sharper and AF was better than the TC option.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a versatile lens, but its utility depends on what other lenses you have.  If you already use a 85 or 135mm prime for portraiture, the 70-200 is less critical and the 100-400 becomes a better complement.  The 100-400 wins for everything except for portraiture and when you need a larger aperture (events where fast aperture and zooms are preferred).  When traveling, I carry a 24-70, and I opt for the 100-400 and leave the 70-200 at home.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2018, 01:30:22 PM »

Aussie shooter

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 101
Re: 70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2018, 06:04:29 PM »
Thanks for the replys. To clarify my kit will be the 7d2. 24-70 2.8. Sigma 10-20 3.5 and either the 70-2-- with 2x(mk111) or the 100-400mk2 with 1.4km3. will also have a 700d as backup (most likely with the sigma attatched) My concern is the 100-400 with 1.4 is reduced to centre point AF and at f8 AF will undoubtedly be slower and my thought is that when I return having the 70-200 2.8 is very handy. I do shoot a fair bit of wildlife but am getting into some pet photography to earn a bit of money on the side. Both lenses would actually be very good for that but I am leaning toward the 70-200 as the more useful. The Sigma was a great lens(for the price it is stunning really) but Focusing speed required a lot of skill to work with as it is 6.3 at the long end as well as being a 3rd party lens with 3rd party communication issues. Just how much am I giving up in IQ with the 2x tele on the 70-200?
Gear....Who cares. Just shoot
(just kidding) I'd love to be a gear whore but can't afford it

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200 2.8 with 2x tele vs 100-400mk2 with 1.4 tele
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2018, 06:04:29 PM »