February 25, 2018, 01:07:57 PM

Author Topic: 70-200 2.8 + 2x teleconverter vs 100-400  (Read 45739 times)

bkorcel

  • Guest
Re: 70-200 2.8 + 2x teleconverter vs 100-400
« Reply #30 on: October 05, 2012, 04:31:45 PM »
You are on the right path.  If you are going to get the 70-200 mkii then you wont need the 100-400.  The 200 plus 2xiii extender is all as good as the 100-400.  After using the 70-200 mkII with the 2XIII for a while.  I picked up the 100-400.  Decided to return it as it did not offer me anything I didn't already have.  Plus  the AF was more accurate on the 70-200 with 2xiii.. More keepers shooting birds in flight.  the 100-400 seemed to hunt more for focus and I lost a lot of shots because of it.

I'm pondering the same decision right now.

I don't own either lens yet, but I will be getting the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II soon.  I have the non-L 70-300 IS right now, and I routinely shoot at 300mm.  I would not object to having even more range.  200mm won't cut it for what I do - so I'll either go with the extender 2x mk III or the 100-400.  Obviously, the former solution is cheaper, but if I have to save up a bit longer to get the 100-400 in addition to the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II, then I will.

I understand that the speed of the focus drive is cut by 75% when the extender 2x is used (and by 50% when the 1.4x is used).  I don't do a lot of sports or fast-action shooting (at least not in the 300mm + range), so I can probably live with this.  It sounds like with the (mk II) lens + (mk III) extender at 400mm, IQ is on par with what you get from the 100-400 lens at 400mm.  Yes, you lose 2 stops of light with the extender 2x, which means that either way you go, you will have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm.  So, this is really looking like a true "toss up" here.   

I firmly believe in buying lenses with the native focal lengths that you really need, and as I've said, I'm not opposed to saving up a little longer to get the 100-400mm.  BUT, here is what has me leaning in the direction of the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II + the extender 2x mk III, instead of the 100-400:  

(1)  The "drawbacks" in terms of sharpness, IQ, contrast, etc... inherent with any extender are offset by the fact that you're starting with a MUCH higher quality lens (the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II);

(2)  Any issues with contrast can certainly be corrected in PP and the images can also be sharpened a bit in PP, if necessary.  I’m willing to do this work, if lens + extender ends up being the better way to go;

(3)  The 100-400 isn’t (fully) weather sealed, while the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II is weather sealed (as is the extender 2x mk III).  I don't deliberately subject my gear to adverse conditions, but it is nice to know that my investment is protected, if the elements catch me off guard; and     

(4)  The 100-400 only has 2 stops of correction via its IS system, vs. 4 stops of correction via the newer implementation of IS on the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II. 

Point # 4 above is what REALLY has me leaning in this direction.  I don't lug a tripod around with me everywhere.  99% of my shots are hand-held.  DOUBLE the correction (from a more updated IS system) has me thinking that the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II + extender 2x mk III might actually be "better" than buying the 100-400. 

Am I crazy for thinking this?!?  As you can see, I'm aware of the slower focus speed, IQ issues, etc. of going the lens + extender route here.  I didn't see the issue of a much better IS system being discussed in this thread and I just wanted to bring it up.  I'd love to hear your thoughts about this and anyone's actual experience as it relates to the two IS systems here.  Thanks!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200 2.8 + 2x teleconverter vs 100-400
« Reply #30 on: October 05, 2012, 04:31:45 PM »