Which better? 100-400L @ 400m or 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii + 2x mk.iii @ 400mm

[K-amps]

I was told both lenses at 400mm f5.6 pitted against each other, the 100-400L would smoke the 70-200mk.ii + 2x iii combo. So far this one test shot shows both very close, I am preferring the 70-200+2x due to better shadow detail: 100-400 has more contrast though... Open both files and pixel peep please.

Looking at the thumbnails the 100-400 looks better, but at pixel peeping levels the 70-200 2x looks better.

Both are 100% crops taken on a rainy evening under high ISO.

NO pp was done to the RAW before converting to jpeg in CS5.

 

[JR]

Really hard to see from my ipad. They yboth look good. You mentionned you seem to prefer the opne with the 70-200 right?

 

[kirispupis]

You can see a comparison of them here - 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

I have the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III and used to own the 100-400 (I sold it to finance the 70-200). Although I did not own them at the same time, my experience mirrors the results from the link above - the 100-400 is slightly better. However, the difference is not huge and really takes pixel peeping to notice. Given the versatility of the 70-200/2.8 II, IMHO this is the far better choice.

 

[K-amps]

Really hard to see from my ipad. They yboth look good. You mentionned you seem to prefer the opne with the 70-200 right?

Yes, I sold the 100-400