EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II vs EF 70-200mm f/2.8L + 2X III

[Sashi]

Hi,
Just packing for a trip to Argentina and trying to keep things light. Am trying to avoid taking both lenses and wanted to know how good the 200 with a 2X extender was compared to the new 100-400. Took some pictures to compare and the 100-400 came out sharper. Anyway, sharing the results in the event that it is useful to anyone else.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II vs EF 70-200mm f/4.0L + 2X III

So which is it? F/4L or F/2.8 MK II. Your title and the photo title does not match.

We all know that the f/2.8L MK II with a TC is very good. The f/4L NON IS with TC's suffers at the long end considerably.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II vs EF 70-200mm f/4.0L + 2X III

Hi,
Just packing for a trip to Argentina and trying to keep things light. Am trying to avoid taking both lenses and wanted to know how good the 200 with a 2X extender was compared to the new 100-400. Took some pictures to compare and the 100-400 came out sharper. Anyway, sharing the results in the event that it is useful to anyone else.

same here as well. I will vote on the 100-400 that's what im going to take, I got the option of the 70-200 2.8 but nope.

 

[Sashi]

Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II vs EF 70-200mm f/4.0L + 2X III

So which is it? F/4L or F/2.8 MK II. Your title and the photo title does not match.

We all know that the f/2.8L MK II with a TC is very good. The f/4L NON IS with TC's suffers at the long end considerably.

Oops, it should have been f2.8 in the title not f4. Thanks, corrected it. Mine is the mk I.