EF 70-200 f2.8 ii (with extender as needed) vs EF 100-400 ii?

[LovePhotography]

Okay, so, for vacation photography....
I've got a 6D (which I love), (and a 7D mk2) and am thinking of three lenses for vacay this year.
I've got: 16-35 f/4, Sigma 24-105 Art, and EF 70-200 f/2.8 plus TC 1.4 and 2 iii's.
(I've also got EF 300 f/2.8 ii and 600 ii, but not for vacay).
So, I'm wondering (of those who have tried both, or those with an opinion...)
With the price of the 100-400 now down to $1600 on eBay, for Pacific Coast Highway drive next month, should I get a 100-400 or just use the 70-200 and a TC if I want more reach? One costs money, and the other requires fumbling around with a TC with the risk of dropping something, and wasting time when you are with your college student son for a few days...
Is the improvement in my vacay photos and enjoyment of my day worth the money?
I guess I could put the 24-105 on the 6D and the 70-200 on the 7D2 and rarely change lenses at all, if the 7D2 doesn't drop off IQ too much.
I realize the 70-200 is the better lens from 100-200, and the 100-400 is the better lens from beyond 200.

IN SUMMARY:
If you were a person who used the 70-200 f/2.8 ii and then bought the 100-400 ii, did you like it? Would you do it again?
Thanks

 

[telemaq76]

i have the 70-200 2.8 is II+ teleconverter X2 II, and the prime 400 f5.6L ( i keep it for astro, it s light )
same quality, i cant see any difference in Iq or af speed.

and you can watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9zWpihW8IE

 

[LovePhotography]

i have the 70-200 2.8 is II+ teleconverter X2 II, and the prime 400 f5.6L ( i keep it for astro, it s light )
same quality, i cant see any difference in Iq or af speed.

and you can watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9zWpihW8IE

Thanks for that.
I'm gonna take both bodies and use the 6D for the Sig Art 24-105 (and the EF 16-35 f/4). And I'm gonna put the 70-200 f/2.8 ii on the 7D2, and take a TC. But, I can probably get what I need without changes lenses hardly at all. That's what I want most, I think. Saves time, lower risk, and less dust getting into the lenses.

Thanks! You helped me save some $$$ and redundancy. And, helped me use my 7D2 which I don't use often enough. Good deal! I can spend the $$$ on some 10 oz silver bars. ;D ;D ;D

 

[jdramirez]

I was thinking about this the other day... I actually went to the digital picture to get the comparison...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

From what I could tell of test patterns... the center was nearly the same... but the biggest improvement was at the edges...

but the 100-400 can have a 1.4/2.0x tc which gives me an 800mm manual at f/11...

I'm not sure that I would want that... but it is a thought... I think the comparison cured me of my desire to buy the lens... but who can say for sure...

 

[dslrdummy]

i have the 70-200 2.8 is II+ teleconverter X2 II, and the prime 400 f5.6L ( i keep it for astro, it s light )
same quality, i cant see any difference in Iq or af speed.

and you can watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9zWpihW8IE

Thanks for that.
I'm gonna take both bodies and use the 6D for the Sig Art 24-105 (and the EF 16-35 f/4). And I'm gonna put the 70-200 f/2.8 ii on the 7D2, and take a TC. But, I can probably get what I need without changes lenses hardly at all. That's what I want most, I think. Saves time, lower risk, and less dust getting into the lenses.

Thanks! You helped me save some $$$ and redundancy. And, helped me use my 7D2 which I don't use often enough. Good deal! I can spend the $$$ on some 10 oz silver bars. ;D ;D ;D

My personal experience is that while the IQ is fine with the 1.4x TC on the 70-200, the same can't be said for the 2x TC. That goes for both the 7DII and the 5DIII. And both combinations are bettered by the 100-400ii in my opinion.

 

[J.R.]

Yep. I had both lenses for quite a while. Sold the 70-200 2.8L II IS as it was hardly getting any action. The IQ of the 100-400 II is pretty amazing and it works pretty solid with the 1.4x series III TC as well.

At same apertures, you would struggle to notice any difference in the images out of both lenses. But then f/2.8 is f/2.8 so if you can live with losing 1.5 stops over the 100-200 focal length, then the 100-400 II is the lens for you.

I may add that another reason I sold the 70-200 II was that I had most of the focal length covered with wide apertures lenses - 85L II, 100L and the 135L. I then went ahead and got myself a dirt cheap, but excellent 200 f/2.8L II.

I do photography only as a hobby though, your professional needs may be different.

 

[arthurbikemad]

Like others I shoot with 5D3 and have the 70-200II and the 100-400II, also have both 1.4x III and 2x III, I can not bring myself to part with any of them, the 70-200 is a great lens, works well with the 1.4x but defo slows up with the 2x, IQ wise as said its fine but tracking moving subjects is hard if using the 1.4/2x on the 70-200 in low light, also the loss of AF points is a pain, same issue with AF points with the 100-400 and teleconverters, the 100-400II is another great lens, however at times I find it a little long at the 100mm end (however it has an amazing macro style close focus), again depends on what you shoot but for me at times the 70-200 is just the job and plus 1.4x gives that little extra for my type of work... If I had to choose one I'd prob go with the 100-400II and dump the 70-200 and tele's as the 100-400 is so good across the range.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Like others I shoot with 5D3 and have the 70-200II and the 100-400II, also have both 1.4x III and 2x III, I can not bring myself to part with any of them, the 70-200 is a great lens, works well with the 1.4x but defo slows up with the 2x, IQ wise as said its fine but tracking moving subjects is hard if using the 1.4/2x on the 70-200 in low light, also the loss of AF points is a pain, same issue with AF points with the 100-400 and teleconverters, the 100-400II is another great lens, however at times I find it a little long at the 100mm end (however it has an amazing macro style close focus), again depends on what you shoot but for me at times the 70-200 is just the job and plus 1.4x gives that little extra for my type of work... If I had to choose one I'd prob go with the 100-400II and dump the 70-200 and tele's as the 100-400 is so good across the range.

Those are the reasons the 100-400mmL II is in my wish list, despite I have the 70-200 2.8L IS II and TC 1.4X III

 

[FEBS]

I own both the 70-200 2.8II and the 100-400 II. To be honest, after buying the 100-400 I hardly use the 70-200. For Holidays I take the 16-35 f4 and the 100-400 II +1.4III. Sometime I add the 24-105 f4. As 3 lenses is the max in that case. Quality of the 100-400II is really SUPER. The only thing is that the aperture is an advantage for the 70-200. So in low light and portrait I still use the 70-200, but for general use my 70-200 stays at home.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Optically, the 100-400 II is better than the 70-200 II + 2x, but probably not sufficiently better to make IQ a deciding factor. Personally, I'd base the decision on other factors... Will you be shooting indoors where f/2.8 would be beneficial? How frequently will you need 400mm? Fiddling with a TC can be a pain, and in my experience the 70-200 + 2x is a bit awkward ergonomically (suboptimal balance, too long for many bags when mounted). But for occasional use, it's fine.

If you're going to spend money, IMO the best travel telezoom is the 70-300L. Wide enough to be of some general use, reasonably long, excellent IQ, smaller and lighter than the 70-200/2.8 or 100-400, and important for me it fits 'vertically' in most camera bags, taking up only one lens compartment not two.

I have the 70-200/2.8 II, had the 100-400 (original), sold it for lack of use after getting the 600 II and 70-300L, and have no real desire for the 100-400 II.

 

[LovePhotography]

I was thinking about this the other day... I actually went to the digital picture to get the comparison...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

From what I could tell of test patterns... the center was nearly the same... but the biggest improvement was at the edges...

but the 100-400 can have a 1.4/2.0x tc which gives me an 800mm manual at f/11...

I'm not sure that I would want that... but it is a thought... I think the comparison cured me of my desire to buy the lens... but who can say for sure...

That was interesting. Thanks for posting. The difference was really quite a bit, IMO. Certainly more than I would have thought from the opinion of the Tony Northrup video posted above. Really, the opposite of the Northrup conclusion. Of course, few people much care about IQ in the corners, but I think it's important. :/
But, for now, I think I'll stick with what I've got. Maybe pick up a cheap used 70-300 someday for travel as Neuro said. But for this trip I'll take two bodies and the 1.4 TC. That ought to help. It's not a photo vacay per se', but certainly a gorgeous slice of this little blue ball we all inhabit.

 

[LovePhotography]

On 7D2 body...

70-200 f/2.8 with TC 1.4 iii at 280mm and f/5.6 vs. 100-400 at 300mm and f/5.6

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2


Now, 7D2 body with 70-200mm and TC 1.4 iii at f/5.6 vs 1Dsiii body (didn't have 6D) with 100-400mm at 400mm at f/5.6

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

A difference in the corners, but that's about it.

Interesting

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Optically, the 100-400 II is better than the 70-200 II + 2x, but probably not sufficiently better to make IQ a deciding factor. Personally, I'd base the decision on other factors... Will you be shooting indoors where f/2.8 would be beneficial? How frequently will you need 400mm? Fiddling with a TC can be a pain, and in my experience the 70-200 + 2x is a bit awkward ergonomically (suboptimal balance, too long for many bags when mounted). But for occasional use, it's fine.

If you're going to spend money, IMO the best travel telezoom is the 70-300L. Wide enough to be of some general use, reasonably long, excellent IQ, smaller and lighter than the 70-200/2.8 or 100-400, and important for me it fits 'vertically' in most camera bags, taking up only one lens compartment not two.

I have the 70-200/2.8 II, had the 100-400 (original), sold it for lack of use after getting the 600 II and 70-300L, and have no real desire for the 100-400 II.

I have both, but I question the number of times you can use a long lens on the pacific coast. There is often haze in the air, so you will need not only the right subject, but the right atmosphere conditions. I grew up near the coast (Near Westport, WA, and have been to the beach countless times. I can only recall a few times without fog or haze to some degree, and always wind and sand in the air. Be sure to keep a filter on the lens, and a polarizer for water shots. I will say that the Long Beach, WA has better weather and clearer days than the areas further North. I had a tough time believing their 78 degree temperature two weeks ago though.

If you want to shoot birds in flight or seals, or other distant objects, the 100-400 plus 1.4 TC is best.

I suspect that wider shots will be your mainstay.

 

[Random Orbits]

When I had the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, 700-300L and the original 100-400L, the 70-200 was the most used lens, and it was a toss up between the other two. I upgraded to the 100-400 II, and now I'm using the 70-200 and 100-400 about the same and the 70-300 is rarely used now.

The 70-200 is now used primarily indoor and for portraiture or smaller field sports. For outside sports on larger fields or for a trip to the zoo, the 100-400 has taken over.

Like neuroanatomist stated, the 70-300L is more compact, but I think it's value is higher if you're bringing a supertelephoto and need to stand it vertically in the bag to save space while covering a large focal length range (i.e. 600, 70-300, 50, 16-35.) The couple of inches and weight saved usually does not outweigh a larger max aperture or a longer focal length range if I'm only bringing one 70-xxx or 100-400 zoom.

1600 is a great price for the 100-400 II but it really comes down to whether or not you'd use it enough to warrant the cost.

 

[LovePhotography]

Optically, the 100-400 II is better than the 70-200 II + 2x, but probably not sufficiently better to make IQ a deciding factor. Personally, I'd base the decision on other factors... Will you be shooting indoors where f/2.8 would be beneficial? How frequently will you need 400mm? Fiddling with a TC can be a pain, and in my experience the 70-200 + 2x is a bit awkward ergonomically (suboptimal balance, too long for many bags when mounted). But for occasional use, it's fine.

If you're going to spend money, IMO the best travel telezoom is the 70-300L. Wide enough to be of some general use, reasonably long, excellent IQ, smaller and lighter than the 70-200/2.8 or 100-400, and important for me it fits 'vertically' in most camera bags, taking up only one lens compartment not two.

I have the 70-200/2.8 II, had the 100-400 (original), sold it for lack of use after getting the 600 II and 70-300L, and have no real desire for the 100-400 II.

I have both, but I question the number of times you can use a long lens on the pacific coast. There is often haze in the air, so you will need not only the right subject, but the right atmosphere conditions. I grew up near the coast (Near Westport, WA, and have been to the beach countless times. I can only recall a few times without fog or haze to some degree, and always wind and sand in the air. Be sure to keep a filter on the lens, and a polarizer for water shots. I will say that the Long Beach, WA has better weather and clearer days than the areas further North. I had a tough time believing their 78 degree temperature two weeks ago though.

If you want to shoot birds in flight or seals, or other distant objects, the 100-400 plus 1.4 TC is best.

I suspect that wider shots will be your mainstay.

+10

Some really good points in this thread.
So, I need the polarizer and stuff? (
I was hoping to do all that in DxO or LR6.
More stuff I don't have.