70-200 2.8 + 2x teleconverter vs 100-400

[VitaliD]

Given that I've definetely decided to buy the Canon 70-200 2.8, what would be the reason for me NOT to buy a 2x teleconverter to cover the up to 400mm range instead of Canon 100-400, apart from the slight aperture advantage at shorter range?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There are three versions of the 70-200mm f/2.8L, the answer is different for the different versions, but one answer is common, slow autofocus. The IQ will vary from dismal to almost as good as the 100-400mmL depending on the version.
I think its a waste of money, you will spend $$$ on a TC that is a pain to mount and use, and then, it will only work with f/2.8 lenses and retain AF unless you have a 1 series body up thru the 1D MK IV.

 

[VitaliD]

I am planning to buy the IS Mk2 version - that, I suppose, means that the image quality will be almost the same as with the 100-400.

The "it will only work with f/2.8 lenses and retain AF unless you have a 1 series body up thru the 1D MK IV" can be taken out of equation, because the same applies to the 100-400 lens (aperture difference is small).

Which leaves the following for the 2x extender:

- 1/3 of the price of the 100-400
- more flexibility: ability to use it with other lenses for other applications

and the following against it:

- slightly lower image quality
- slower autofocus
- more cumbersome to mount and use.

The price and flexibility advantages look appealing. I've never used extenders; can you elaborate on "pain to mount and use"? Is it really that bad?

 

[jhpeterson]

There are three versions of the 70-200mm f/2.8L, the answer is different for the different versions, but one answer is common, slow autofocus. The IQ will vary from dismal to almost as good as the 100-400mmL depending on the version.
I think its a waste of money, you will spend $$$ on a TC that is a pain to mount and use, and then, it will only work with f/2.8 lenses and retain AF unless you have a 1 series body up thru the 1D MK IV.

I'll beg to differ.
I have both the II version of 70-200/2.8L IS and the 2x EF III. While I'll concede the autofocus speed slows down noticably with the converter on, given decent light, it's still usable for most situations. I'll grant that I don't have much experience with the 100-400, but the IQ, to me, appears almost as good to slightly better with the 70-200/2x combination. However, I found the older version of the IS model was much worse, while the non-IS lens fell somewhere in between.
With the MkII lens and the MkIII converter, I suppose it's a wash and you're paying considerably more money. But , if you planning on working much at 200mm and under, where you'd be using the 70-200 alone, there's absolutely no comparison. Likewise, if you seldom use lengths beyond 300mm, perhaps a better choice would be to get the 1.4x MkIII and cropping for the occasional long shot.
As far as the "pain to mount and use", I suppose you have to ask yourself whether you can spare the 5-10 seconds it will take to make the change.

 

[Ayelike]

I had the 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS but wanted more reach since I've gone full frame. Have toyed with the idea of 100-400mm, 300mm f4 IS and the 400mm f5.6 but have decided to get the 70-200 f2.8 IS II and the Extender 2X III.

The Extender 2X III has arrived today but I'm still waiting for the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II to arrive so I'm unable to share my experiences just yet.

I can say however share my reasons for going down this route:

70-200mm f2.8 IS II is an amazing lens and worth the upgrade from the non-IS version. Sharper and with IS.

100-400mm would only be using this lens in the 200-400mm range as already owned the 70-200mm that does a better job in this range. From what I've seen, the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II with the Extender 2X III is nearly as sharp and still has the IS - will wait and see how the AF performs.

300mm f4 IS - I struggled to justify the cost of this lens at f4 when I could crop a shot from the 70-200mm at f2.8. I think this would be a great lens but I just don't think I'd use it all that much.

400mm f4.6 - this lens is supposed to be really sharp but the lack of IS at that range and speed worried me (I mainly shoot hand-held) and if I wanted to zoom out to compose a shot it would mean a lens change. I think at an event I'm shooing, as I only have one body, I'd be swapping this on and off way too much.

There are so many routes to go down I don't think there is a right and a wrong. You have to find what is best for you I suppose.

My 70-200mm f2.8 IS II should be here in the next few days - I'm also taking this and the Extender 2X III to an airshow in a couple of weeks so I'll let you know my findings after that.

I think the combo is going to be sharp enough for me... at this stage I've just got my fingers crossed that the 5D MKIII will be able to keep the AF tracking through the extender. Watch this space!

 

[M.ST]

At 400 mm you can focus much faster with the EF 100-400 IS.

 

[Paul W. H]

My wife and I both have 7D's and share lenses including a EF100-400L and a EF70-200L f/2.8 IS MKI. We also have a Canon 1.4x II and 2.0x II TC and both these work with the 70-200 making it a very versatile lense.

 

[FarQinell]

In a situation like this I always refer to the-digital-picture ISO test charts by Brian Carnahan.

With both lenses wide open @400mm the 100-400L is significantly sharper than the 70-200mm f2.8 II plus Canon TC 2x II.

You have to be desperate to put a 2X TC - even a good one - on any lens! You loose a lot of sharpness and AF speed and the 2XTC is not light in weight either.

My suggestion: wait for the new 100-400L coming down the line - likely to be even sharper than the present one and with a much better IS.

Unfortunately there will be a long waiting list for it!

 

[bbasiaga]

...and a huge price tag on the new 100-400 too.

I'd look at it this way: if you are only an occasional shooter at longer than 200mm...then use the TC and save your money. If you like to do a lot of longer stuff, get the dedicated lens. Remember that using that TC on any of your other lenses slower than 2.8 renders autofocus inoperable (unless you've got a 1Dmk2,3,4)...so it may not be as versatile as you think. And really, if you are going to have 70-400 covered already, what other lens are you going to put that TC on anyway?

-Brian

 

[Ayelike]

I found this comparison pretty useful:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5894.msg111941

I wouldn't say there was much difference in sharpness between the 100-400 @400 and the 70-200 IS II with 2X III @400 but the 100-400 wins on contrast. I wonder if some RAW processing or post production could fix that though.

I agree with bbasiaga in that if you mainly shoot beyond 200mm then get a lens that has a native range you're after. TCs in my opinion are for occasional times you want more reach and only on sharp and fast lenses.

If I find myself using my TC a lot it'll probably lead me to sell it and get a lens that fits the bill better. But a TC is a good stopgap so you can priorities your money elsewhere.

 

[VitaliD]

And really, if you are going to have 70-400 covered already, what other lens are you going to put that TC on anyway?

Probably none

I agree with you. The flexibility argument hardly applies here; I am very unlikely to use the extender for anything other than 70-200.

Which lives me with the alternative: 1/3 the price VS slightly higher quality and much faster autofocus. In case of the next generation of 100-400, it will probably be 1/4 of the price.

Now I understand what I'll be paying for, how much and for what reasons.

Thank you guys

 

[K-amps]

Hi there:

I was in your position a few months back. Infact I actually owned both side by side for a while and did some tests. (70-200 f2.8 mk.ii + 2x mk.iii vs. 100-400mm).

I agree there was slightly faster focus with the 100-400, but the f2.8 +Tc was not bad at all. On my 5D3, the AF is still pretty fast , I am able to shoot sports with not a lot of issues with this combo.

Second, the contrast was abit better with the 100-400, but the gradients in the TC combo were better and let me see more details overall. Also the contrast can be tweaked in PP so this was not a huge issue for me.

Third; Sharpness was a toss, but perhaps the 100-400 was slightly better... but not by much. the 2x mk.iii is a huge improvement over the 2x mk.ii so talk to people that have used the mk.iii TC for a more relevant comparison. (unless you plan to buy a 2x ii in which case IQ will take a definite hit)

Fourth: the 100-400 is a large lens... takes up a lot of space in my camera bag, I can store 3 lenses vertically for that 1 slot that the 100-400 takes.

Fifth: Weight. No comparison here.

Sixth: you can use the TC with other lenses also

Lastly you will save about $1000 and not lose a whole lot in IQ, in fact youmight need to pixel peep to see a difference. I am assuming you do not have deep pockets otherwise you'd be getting a 400mm f/2.8 ii. The dedicated lens will always be better but the question is, is it a material difference?

I sold my 100-400 a few weeks back, and have little desire to own one again while I have the 70-200 mk.ii plus TC combo working.

 

[ernieu]

I had both, and my experience is that the 70-200 IS II with the 2x II seemed about equal to the 100-400, and in some shots was sharper and more contrasty. I may have had a bad 100-400. With the 2x II, the 70-200 IS II was quite slow focusing, even in sunlight - but was acceptable for shooting still images. I have sold my 100-400 and will probably replace it with a 500 f4 (or the new 100-400, if it rates quite well).

I tend to use my 7D for the longer lenses and 5D MII for the shorter lenses, unless I really need high ISO. My standard setup is a 24-105 on the 5D II, and the 70-200 on the 7D, giving me basically 24-320 equivalent. I keep the 2x II handy for longer reach if required.

 

[Maui5150]

Just shot with the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II and the 2X III and was pleasantly surprised.

From others I have talked with, the 70-200 II is extremely agile, even with the 2x III, so while it may be a little slower AF, it is not nearly the impact the extender has on some of the other lenses.

I think the 70-200 II with 2x III still shot faster than the 70-200 F/4

Sharpness was a little down, but also not sure how of that was me shooting action with a 5d MK II so not the best AF system for that

If I wind up doing a lot of shooting at this distance, I will probably go for the 100-400, but would think of nothing renting the extender for a weekend, especially at around $30, very cheap to get the extra reach

 

[IIIHobbs]

I found the results of having the 1.4xII attached to the Ver I 70-200 f2.8 IS okay.

When switching to a FF Camera earlier this year, I sold the zoom and replaced it with the 300 f4. I liked the results provided by the 300 f4 very much, fast, sharp, excellent for sports.

I initially planned to use the 1.4xII with the 300 f4, but instead sold it and bought a Ver I 300 f2.8 IS. The 300 f2.8 IS with the 1.4xII is an incredible combination.

 

[K-amps]

I found the results of having the 1.4xII attached to the Ver I 70-200 f2.8 IS okay.

When switching to a FF Camera earlier this year, I sold the zoom and replaced it with the 300 f4. I liked the results provided by the 300 f4 very much, fast, sharp, excellent for sports.

I initially planned to use the 1.4xII with the 300 f4, but instead sold it and bought a Ver I 300 f2.8 IS. The 300 f2.8 IS with the 1.4xII is an incredible combination.

Maybe you can rent the Mk.III 1.4x , it might make you even happier than the mk.ii I hear the improvement is not incremental but in leaps .

 

[InterMurph]

I went looking for loons in a kayak last week. I brought my Canon 5D Mark III, 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM, and 2x III teleconverter.

Most of the shots were not sharp, but that was clearly due to the motion of the kayak, and the difficulty in holding steady at 400mm. But I did get many shots like this (400mm, f/5.6, 1/400, ISO 100):


Lake Dunmore-2699 by Martin Del Vecchio, on Flickr

Here is a 100% crop:


Lake Dunmore-2699-2 by Martin Del Vecchio, on Flickr

 

[K-amps]

Thats amazing clarity for a TC, lookat that Iris . Nice shot

A side benefit of the combo is the extra blur your get a wider apertures by merely adding a TC... since you are now shooting at 400mm, you can get very nice background blurs when you want to.

 

[brianleighty]

Thats amazing clarity for a TC, lookat that Iris . Nice shot

A side benefit of the combo is the extra blur your get a wider apertures by merely adding a TC... since you are now shooting at 400mm, you can get very nice background blurs when you want to.

Just to confirm, you're not saying the 70-200 with 2x TC has a shorter depth of field than the 100-400 at the same aperture and zoom setting correct? Just that 5.6 at 400mm has a smaller depth of field than 5.6 at 200mm correct?

 

[castillophotodesign]

I was thinking of buying the 100-400 as well but i decided not to. I own the 70-200IS II and TC1.4x & TC2X. I barely use the 2X because the autofocus seems very slow and the image losses a lot of sharpness. On the other hand, the 1.4X is great. focus is nice and fast and and I see no major change in image quality. here is a shot with the 70-200 and the TC1.4X


untitled shoot-8479.jpg by CastilloPhotoDesign, on Flickr