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

[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.

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?

What I meant was you can get more OOF blur with longer focal lengths... correct me if I am wrong but adding a TC does not reduce the physical aperture size, which still remains at f2.8 . The physical aperture governs the OOF blur right?

Adding a TC will give you more length and thus more OOF blur. Adding a TC will reduce the light intensity and thus f2.8 becomes f5.6, but it does not close the aperture blades per se, they remain fully /wide open. With the aperture size constant and the focal length double, you lose 2x light intensity but gain 2x OOF blur.

This is how I understand it, and it coincides with experience. Anyone correct me if I am wrong..

 

[Loswr]

Ok, I'll correct you - you're wrong.

200mm f/2.8 with a 2x TC behaves just like any other 400mm f/5.6 lens in terms of DoF. Since the 200/2.8+2x magnifies the subject more than a native 200mm, assuming you don't double the distance to the subject, it appears to yield a shallower DoF. But you are still at f/5.6, and if you framed the subject identically with a native 400/5.6, the DoF would be the same as the 200/2.8+2x, you are not magically getting a 400mm f/2.8 in terms of DoF.

As a side note though, there is a real, lens-dependent effect. Because a TC does not change the MFD, and the 70-200/2.8 II MFD is about 2 feet closer than that of the 100-400, it is possible to get a closer subject distance with the 70-200+2x than the 100-400, and that does result in a (slightly) shallower DoF, assuming you are shooting at the MFD.

 

[K-amps]

Ok, I'll correct you - you're wrong.

200mm f/2.8 with a 2x TC behaves just like any other 400mm f/5.6 lens in terms of DoF. Since the 200/2.8+2x magnifies the subject more than a native 200mm, assuming you don't double the distance to the subject, it appears to yield a shallower DoF. But you are still at f/5.6, and if you framed the subject identically with a native 400/5.6, the DoF would be the same as the 200/2.8+2x, you are not magically getting a 400mm f/2.8 in terms of DoF.

As a side note though, there is a real, lens-dependent effect. Because a TC does not change the MFD, and the 70-200/2.8 II MFD is about 2 feet closer than that of the 100-400, it is possible to get a closer subject distance with the 70-200+2x than the 100-400, and that does result in a (slightly) shallower DoF, assuming you are shooting at the MFD.

Thanks Neuro... I am not comparing it to the 400 f5.6 or saying I will get 400 F2.8... Perhaps I did not explain myself better.

I can use my feet, go back a bit shoot the same framing (by moving back) and get more OOF blur with the TC (200 +TC) that without (200 without TC) for the same framing ... does this explain my position?

 

[adhocphotographer]

Hey, this might be a little off topic, but i was hoping someone could chip in with an answer.

I have a 55-250, which i am about to upgrade to a 70-200 IS II (whoooop)... Does anyone know how the AF compares between the 55-250 and the 70-200 2xTC combo???

I know there are good resources for resolution comparisons, but what about focusing speed comparisons? does anyone know of any?

Thanks

 

[M.ST]

I prefer the EF 400 2.8 II for or higher for wildlife shots.

 

[shadowsatnight]

Hey, this might be a little off topic, but i was hoping someone could chip in with an answer.

I have a 55-250, which i am about to upgrade to a 70-200 IS II (whoooop)... Does anyone know how the AF compares between the 55-250 and the 70-200 2xTC combo???

Hi adhoc, I've found (on a 7D) that with the 2xIII, the AF using this combo is still slightly quicker than the 55-250 - providing you've limited the min. focus distance. If you let it go through its full range, takes a similar or possibly slightly longer time to acquire lock.
(to stress though....this is just with the TC on, the lens on its own is V fast to AF. Enjoy it! ).

 

[bkorcel]

I've used both and I returned the 100-400 in favor of the 70-200 f2.8L IS II and Canon 2X III. There are a couple of reasons why I did this:

1) AF on the 100-400 was inaccurate with birds in flight on my 60D (What I owned at the time) and often would just fail to lock in time before the shot was gone. I determined that the 100-400 wide open suffered from slight diffraction issues which interfered with the AF system in both quick mode and live view mode focusing. It's slight but was enough to cause the AF to fail to lock on accurately enough. The focus was all over the place. you could sharpen the image by stopping down some but the AF always works wide open. I tried two copies of the lens and same results. The 70-200 with the 2X was able to lock on about 90% of the time, the 100-400 about 50% (for birds in flight). AF speed was a bit faster with the 100-400 but if it cant lock very well, what's the point?

2) The 100-400 is not weather sealed and would often fog on the inside during extreme temperature extremes and high humidity (less of an issue if you didn't "pump" the zoom). Go from a room with AC to a hot humid summer day and your shoot is ruined for the day. This was important to me due to the kind of shooting I would use it for...might not be a big issue for some.

3) Removing the 2X gave me another zoom range for closer shots (dual purpose lens) and therefore gets more use than a 100-400 would normally get.

I also purchased the 1.4x III and that has been useful for shooting sports where I can get reasonably close to the action and don't need f2.8.

Going with the 70-200 option is obviously much more expensive so you have to weigh your budget with the cost of getting a higher percentage of keepers. The good news is that if you take care of your lens you can often get 80% of the value at resale or trade in...so it's possible to go with your budget limits and then upgrade later without taking much of a hit. Hopefully the 20% can be made up by sales or simply by personal enjoyment during use before you upgrade and take your shots to next level.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[DigitalDivide]

I can use my feet, go back a bit shoot the same framing (by moving back) and get more OOF blur with the TC (200 +TC) that without (200 without TC) for the same framing ... does this explain my position?

It does explain your position, but unfortunately this is also incorrect . Let's assume you are 20 feet from your subject and you are shooting your 200mm wide open for maximum DOF. At f/2.8 you'll get about 6 inches of DOF.

Now you attach your 2x TC and back up 20 feet to get a 40 foot subject distance for the same framing. You now have a 400mm f/5.6 lens because of the effect of the TC. DOF in this case would be double - about 12 inches. So you actually get a shallower DOF without the TC by staying closer to your subject.

Like many amateurs, I found the whole subject of DOF confusing. I shot for many years with cheap consumer lenses where it was rarely an issue, but in the last few years I have upgraded to some higher quality glass and I started to notice instances where the DOF was shallower than I anticipated, sometimes enough so to compromise my shot. To get a better feel for the behavior of my lenses I downloaded a couple of DOF calculator apps for my smartphone, and I fiddle with them from time to time - for example, when I happen to be thinking about a certain shooting situation and I want to know what f stop would work best. It is also easy to compare the DOF of various lens and TC combinations this way. There are plenty of examples of DOF calculators on the web as well, such as http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html.

When the DOF with TC question came up recently, I Googled it and found a lot of very helpful information online which has improved my knowledge of the subject considerably. DOF is not particularly hard to understand, but there are a lot of misconceptions about what it really means. It is dependent not only on the fundamental properties of the lens but also on the interaction between the physiology of the human eye and the size of the final image that is being viewed, and it is essential to understand the Circle of Confusion to grasp how it works. I found the tutorials on the Luminous Landscape website to be invaluable in this regard.

 

[adhocphotographer]

Hi adhoc, I've found (on a 7D) that with the 2xIII, the AF using this combo is still slightly quicker than the 55-250 - providing you've limited the min. focus distance. If you let it go through its full range, takes a similar or possibly slightly longer time to acquire lock.
(to stress though....this is just with the TC on, the lens on its own is V fast to AF. Enjoy it! ).

Hey, thanks for the info! Can't wait to get my hands on it...

 

[NJK]

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!

 

[bkorcel]

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!