Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L ?

[Marsu42]

And don't forget the SIGMA 120-300mm F2,8 APO EX DG OS HSM, this is a very very good lens !

... I'd usually stick to Canon because of the re-sale value and the (Canon-made) incompatibilities of 3rd-party lenses with upcoming bodies. Did you compare this Sigma lens to the Canons? I just did a search on this lens and found it is not recommended for use with an extender because of iq ... in this case I can get the Canon 70-300 as well and save $$$. The main reason I was thinking about the Canon 70-200/2.8 was the iq that is not that bad using an extender - otherwise I am not sure how often 2.8 is really necessary except for weddings etc.

That is the first timeI have heard of the 70-300L being refered to as heavy!

... well, it is in comparison with the 70-200/4 and my 100macro - I can hold my 60D + the latter in one hand and the remote flash in the other.

Good example of the use case you describe was an outing to the zoo with my kids

... um, to be honest this bird shot from the zoo seems less-than-stellar to me when looking at the highest resolution on flickr - If I shoot something like this with my 100macro I'd scrap it. Could be because of the jpeg compression on flickr (I've got no experience with it)?

How much of a budget don't you really have?

Money-wise, a 70-200/2.8LIS2+extender would be the absolute sound barrier for me, I am currently your average crawl-through-the-woods fun shooter. And you are correct about the lack of flexibility because changing the extender outdoors isn't very practical. In combination with the rediculous weight, the arguably "ok" iq (judging from your very helpful sample shots) and the price I'll scrap this option and go either for the 70-300 or 100-400 which are half of the price of the 2.8 combination. If I ever turn wedding photographer I can still sell these for a good price.

Btw: Thanks for your great comments on these lenses, that was certainly conclusive! I hope other people find this thread because my problem should be quite common.

One question about the current 100-400: I saw a guy with this lens standing next to me today and remembered that people were complaining about the bad usability of the pull-push-design. Since you really seem to be using these lenses: What's your opinion on that?

 

[Halfrack]

I've got the 100-400 and the 70-200 2.8L - love them both for different reasons. Both will do what you're looking for.

Consider the 300F4L IS in this mix, you'll not have the zoom, but for wildlife it may be your best - especially when you toss on the 1.4x and also the body 1.6x factors.

Since it's money you may not have, pick up a 200/2.8 and both the 1.4x and 2x adapters, it'll cost you about the same as most of these lenses you're taking about, and you can step into it.

 

[Loswr]

Good example of the use case you describe was an outing to the zoo with my kids

... um, to be honest this bird shot from the zoo seems less-than-stellar to me when looking at the highest resolution on flickr - If I shoot something like this with my 100macro I'd scrap it. Could be because of the jpeg compression on flickr (I've got no experience with it)?

I think what you're seeing is a DoF issue - the tip of the beak is outside of the DoF, so it looks blurry. Also, even though the fence is blurred out, it's there - shooting through it costs some sharpness. Finally, :-[ the focus was probably a little off (back focus) - that outing was literally the day after I got the 2x extender, and I hadn't yet done an AF microadjustment on the combination.

One question about the current 100-400: I saw a guy with this lens standing next to me today and remembered that people were complaining about the bad usability of the pull-push-design. Since you really seem to be using these lenses: What's your opinion on that?

I really like it. The only 'problem' is if you know you want to set the lens to a specific focal length, e.g. 250mm, it's harder to dial that in than with a rotating zoom ring - but that's pretty uncommon, I would think. The push-pull design's advantage is that you can change framing very quickly, and without having to reposition your hand to support the weight of the lens from the bottom.

 

[Cyclops]

I own a 70-200L f2.8 II, and this weekend I rented the 70-300L. I was very impressed with image quality, so light weight I could use this as my everyday lens.

5DII w/ 70-300L - examples

 

[Michael_pfh]

Go for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the extenders! It's a great lens that takes both extenders well, particulalry the 1.4x does not impact the IQ much. 2.0x works ok with it. I only got the Mk2 version of the extenders, Mk3 is supposed to be better but the price tag is significantly higher.

 

[Marsu42]

I own a 70-200L f2.8 II, and this weekend I rented the 70-300L. I was very impressed with image quality, so light weight I could use this as my everyday lens.

... well, images at this resolution could be shot with my mobile phone :-> ... but the bokeh looks nice even at 4-5.6 which is very important to me.

Finally, :-[ the focus was probably a little off (back focus) - that outing was literally the day after I got the 2x extender, and I hadn't yet done an AF microadjustment on the combination.

Indeed, the backfocus would explain it. And, speaking of which: my "slimmed down by Canon marketing" 60D doesn't feature such elaborate things as af adjustment - it doesn't matter on my 100macro because w/ 2.8 the iq is bad anyway and the dof is so paper-thin I almost never use it.

But it seems, other lenses that are actually shot at the widest aperture (not to speak with an extender) do require it ... which makes me lean towards the 70-300 or 100-400, because a new body is really not included in my budget.

 

[PixelReaper]

I have been struggling to decide between the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 70-300 L. I do mostly portrait and family shots in outdoor/indoors and low light. I use a 5dII so I too think the 70-200 is very versatile for this body with the large aperature and still fairly wide on the FF. I will also plan to use the 2x III TC for the more limited times I shoot wildlife. Based on the images you posted it appears this combo can still capture plenty of detail. I figure this way, I get the best tele zoom while still having the flexibility to get the reach.

Does this strategy make sense to everyone?

Makes sense to me, and for portraits, I'd definitely pick the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II over the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.

Good example of the use case you describe was an outing to the zoo with my kids, where I took the 5DII and 70-200 II, along with the 2x II. The latter came in handy for shots of the animals, and even f/5.6 (on FF) is sufficient to blur out the fences reasonably well:

Thanks for your response Neuro. The color looks great on that last bird shot. As much as I like the form factor on the 70-300L, being able to take off the Extender on the 70-200 IS II and having a f/2.8 that is super sharp wide open means the lens has much more flexibility. In many ways acts as 2 lenses in one, given the IQ with the extender is still rather acceptable, which justifies the combined extra $1k you spend.

One side note to anyone considering the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II's weight (a topic that comes up on this and other forums almost daily!!).

When I first borrowed this lens from a friend, I ruled it out right away due to the weight, which after carrying it in hand for 30 minutes, I considered to be oppressive.

However!! The second time I borrowed it, I had purchased a Custom SLR Strap, a sling style strap with the glide feature(similar to the BlackRapid) and I was able to easily carry the lens with my gripped 5D Mark II for four hours with absolutely no fatigue. Plus you can easily move it behind your back and have your hands free for other things, in my case, namely my kid!

Long story short - plan on buying a sling style strap with the glide feature aka BlackRapid or Custom SLR strap(which I highly recomend). The weight issue quickly becomes a non issue, and you are left with one of the sharpest, most versatile lens out there (next to my 35 1.4L that is!! )

 

[smirkypants]

You know, I own too many lenses. Thought about buying the 70-300L because of the IQ/focal length. I already own the 70-200/2.8. Maybe I should just get a 1.4x. Any thoughts on IQ comparisons? Focus speed?

 

[sublime LightWorks]

Minor nitpick: I'm pretty sure the reduction in AF speed compared to a bare lens is 50% for the 1.4x TC and 75% for the 2x TC.

Thanks for the correction - worse than I remembered. But, as you say, in practice the AF on the 70-200 II is very fast, so even slowed by 75% it's still decent - certainly fine for static subjects, although I'm not sure how it would do with birds in flight, for example.

I have been struggling to decide between the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 70-300 L. I do mostly portrait and family shots in outdoor/indoors and low light. I use a 5dII so I too think the 70-200 is very versatile for this body with the large aperature and still fairly wide on the FF. I will also plan to use the 2x III TC for the more limited times I shoot wildlife. Based on the images you posted it appears this combo can still capture plenty of detail. I figure this way, I get the best tele zoom while still having the flexibility to get the reach.

Does this strategy make sense to everyone?

Makes sense to me, and for portraits, I'd definitely pick the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II over the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.

Good example of the use case you describe was an outing to the zoo with my kids, where I took the 5DII and 70-200 II, along with the 2x II. The latter came in handy for shots of the animals, and even f/5.6 (on FF) is sufficient to blur out the fences reasonably well:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 260mm, 1/250 s, f/5.6, ISO 400

Thx for both of your postings containing a wealth of info on this topic. Very helpful and very much appreciated.

I own the the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II L and the 1.4x Tele-extender Rev III. Having had the prior 1.4x Tele-extender Rev 2, the IQ and sharpness of this new rev combination of lens and tele-extender is noticeable. IQ is more than acceptable, as are the reductions in AF speed, AF speed has not been an issue in work such as professional cycling or equestrian jumping.

I've been debating combinations of additional lenses to my bag with the 1.4x Rev III as opposed to adding the 2x Rev III to get longer effective focal lengths with the lenses I have. Having both a 5Dmk2 and a 7D, with the intention of getting a 1Dx and selling my 5Dmk2 later this year, I am factoring in more sports work at FF than I do today which is tilted towards the 7D for it's AF and frame rate.

For example, one option I considered is the 300mm f/4 IS L with the 1.4x extender Rev III to reach 420mm f/5.6, or go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II with the 2x rev III extender, reaching 400mm f/5.6. Option #1 is about $1500, option #2 is about $500 since I own the 70-200mm already. This is where I look to balance flexibility vs. costs vs. performance.

Having the flexibility of the zoom is a plus, as is the cost being 2/3 less money by adding the 2x extender. On the other hand, my guess is the IQ will be better on the 300mm f/4 plus the 1.4x extender (which I have already). I'm leaning towards to 2x Rev III due to my experience with the 1.4x Rev III IQ, the reduced cost, and the flexibility of the zoom.

Like others, I wish someone that has the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 2x rev III extender would chime in.....maybe I'll take one for the team and be that person instead. ;D

If I do, I'll have to devise a set of tests to do a proper comparison, with input from folks here....BUT NOT YET!!! I have to examine budget first as I just added the Elinchrom 74" Octabank to my weapons.

I'll post a new thread if I order the 2x to garner input for a test setup and a location where all can get the RAWs for evaluation.

-Bob

 

[PixelReaper]

You know, I own too many lenses. Thought about buying the 70-300L because of the IQ/focal length. I already own the 70-200/2.8. Maybe I should just get a 1.4x. Any thoughts on IQ comparisons? Focus speed?

According to the review and the ISO charts on TDP, the 1.4III see very limited IQ loss when mated with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs. the 70-300L

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

 

[sublime LightWorks]

Interestingly enough, I found this comparison:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=111&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

That compares the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II plus the 2x Rev III extender with the 300mm f/4 IS L plus the 1.4x Rev II extender. Note that is the rev 2 1.4x not the rev 3 1.4x mounted with the 300mm. The IQ looks good in the center on the 70-200 combo, but does become soft in the corners.

There's no question based on the images that the 300mm plus the older 1.4x Rev2 is sharper than the 700-200mm with the newer 2x Rev3, and a lot sharper in the midrange and corners. One cam imagine what the newer 1.4x Rev3 would look like on the 300mm, give the improved IQ I've seen of that extender on the 70-200 over it's older version.

Question is can post-workflow sharpening make enough of a difference to mitigate this.

 

[sublime LightWorks]

I've been down this road and currently own both lenses in question. The answer I have for this issue is a 300mm f2.8 prime. Its a great lens and if you shoot consistently on the long end of either of these lenses the 300 with a 1.4x is a great combination. You still have autofocus and if 300 is too long, back up a few feet. My 100-400 is about to hit ebay and I never plan to put the 2X on the 70-200 again.

Bob Hulse

In a perfect world that sounds great. However the cost difference between the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II vs. the 300mm f/2.8 IS L II is a mere $5000, give or take a couple of hundred bucks. In other words, recommending the OP spend 3x the number of dollars isn't really an option, given his parameters clearly stated in his OP.

I mean, why not skip the whole 1.4x business and spend the $11,000 on the 400mm f/2.8 IS L II ??

I figure you mean well, but his OP defined his parameters and cost was clearly one of them.

 

[smirkypants]

According to the review and the ISO charts on TDP, the 1.4III see very limited IQ loss when mated with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs. the 70-300L

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

I don't know Pix, the 70-300 looks pretty significantly sharper to me.

 

[PixelReaper]

According to the review and the ISO charts on TDP, the 1.4III see very limited IQ loss when mated with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs. the 70-300L

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

I don't know Pix, the 70-300 looks pretty significantly sharper to me.

smirkypants- you are right
I agree, the 70-300 is at it's sharpest at 300 f/5.6. For me, I plan to spend more time using to 70-200 at f/2.8 in its native focal range, using the 1.4xIII or the 2xIII on fewer occasions when shooting wildlife. I guess if I was doing more wildlife and fewr portraits / lowlight shots of the kid, I would pick the 70-300 IQ. The 70-200 2.8 IS II + TC is a good comprimise for me since the wife will kill me if I were to buy both lenses!!!

 

[Stewart Jones Photography]

Like others, I wish someone that has the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 2x rev III extender would chime in.....maybe I'll take one for the team and be that person instead. ;D

If I do, I'll have to devise a set of tests to do a proper comparison, with input from folks here....BUT NOT YET!!! I have to examine budget first as I just added the Elinchrom 74" Octabank to my weapons.

I'll post a new thread if I order the 2x to garner input for a test setup and a location where all can get the RAWs for evaluation.

-Bob

Done.

Although not a scientific test, when I got my 70-200 Mk2 and both Mk3 Extenders over a year ago, I rented a 100-400mm to do some field level comparisons.

Basically the tests consisted of two shooters shooting wildlife/surf shots using a 5D and a 5D2, switching back and forth between the 70-200 Mk2/1.4x Mk3, 70-200 Mk2/2.0x, and the 100-400mm on both bodies. Using LR3 to view RAW images, it was readily apparent which ones were taken with the 70-200/extenders vs the 100-400mm. The 100-400mm simply didn't have the same sharpness or image quality. It wasn't much of a surprise given the price difference, but it was interesting to see the difference in the images. Until the 200-400mm hits the shelves, I'll be sticking with my 70-200mm and using the Extenders when required.

Cheers,

Scott

 

[Marsu42]

According to the review and the ISO charts on TDP, the 1.4III see very limited IQ loss when mated with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs. the 70-300L

I agree to the other comments - the 70-200+extender iq actually looks plain horrible to me, given the weight and the price. But that's just me, I seldom print anything but have fun with my macro lens by using it as a digital microscope and looking at every pixel in the fly's eye.

However!! The second time I borrowed it, I had purchased a Custom SLR Strap, a sling style strap with the glide feature(similar to the BlackRapid)

This is certainly interesting - because the weight of a 70-200/2.8+extender is frightening to me - after all, at the moment I'm doing this for fun (I tried the advice "take a full 1.5 liter bottle and hold it in your left hand"). Maybe I find an opportunity to rent this heavy lens in Berlin and see for myself.

Although not a scientific test, when I got my 70-200 Mk2 and both Mk3 Extenders over a year ago, I rented a 100-400mm to do some field level comparisons.

The problem with these tests of one personal sample are of course production variance - you just don't know if you've got a good copy, let alone a "golden sample". One way is to compare one's lens with sample charts shots from the web and then get one's copy replaced if necessary.

... Which brings me to my question: In the U.S. there seem to be some quality mail order companies for photographic gear, but this is definitely not the case in Germany (please anyone correct me if I'm wrong). Mail order over here equals cheap and "we'll never do anything once we've got your money". On the other hand, store prices e.g. for the 70-300L are 200€ more - and as I wrote I'm not out to burn as much money as I can, I'd get a second 430EX2 flash for this price difference.

If I should happen to get a copy of a 70-300L with CAs or mediocre sharpness - what are your expericences with getting these replaced e.g. by Amazon? There must be many floating around, because I guess they don't trash these lenses but sell them to the next unfortunate customer. If the mail order company is not willing to replace, are these easily adjusted by Canon service for free?

 

[Bennymiata]

The 100-400 is a great lens and the push-pull zooming is fabulous.

Twisting a ring always moves the camera around when framing, and the push-pull does not.
It also means you can zoom and adjust focus at the same time.

I also use mine with a Kenko 2X to take shots of the moon, and the craters come out really sharp, but I do focus manually for these very long shots.

You can pickup good used 100-400's quite cheaply too, so it is worth a go.

 

[samkatz]

Response from a bird photographer's perspective

Putting aside all the technical arguments over what's sharper than what, you have to ask what focal length do you need to capture bird images at all. Then the question is "what kind of birds?"

If you are shooting large birds like ducks and other waterfowl, herons, gulls even shorebirds that are fairly tame you can do w/a max of 300 on a 1.6x crop body. Some of my best shots are with the "lowly" Canon 70-300(non L)IS and the Tamron 70-300 VC.

If you even hope to get any songbirds without sitting in a blind with a set up to bait the birds, you need at least the 400 w/1.6 crop.

With all the talk about the 100-400 IS L.not being sharp enough....well, most unsharp shots are due to camera movement/bad technique, not the lens IQ. You can stop this lens to F6.3 or 7.1, shoot either on a tripod, or handheld/monopod w/IS and get very sharp bird photos. Would you like an f-4 lens that will really throw the background out? That's thousands of dollars and many pounds to carry. With a slower lens you just have to be more careful in your composition, eg keeping some separation between the bird and the background.

I am biased against converters,meaning, if you need it once in a while fine, but if you're going to be using a lens most of the time at 400mm, get a lens that reaches that w/o the converter.

 

[briansquibb]

Re: Response from a bird photographer's perspective

Putting aside all the technical arguments over what's sharper than what, you have to ask what focal length do you need to capture bird images at all. Then the question is "what kind of birds?"

If you are shooting large birds like ducks and other waterfowl, herons, gulls even shorebirds that are fairly tame you can do w/a max of 300 on a 1.6x crop body. Some of my best shots are with the "lowly" Canon 70-300(non L)IS and the Tamron 70-300 VC.

If you even hope to get any songbirds without sitting in a blind with a set up to bait the birds, you need at least the 400 w/1.6 crop.

With all the talk about the 100-400 IS L.not being sharp enough....well, most unsharp shots are due to camera movement/bad technique, not the lens IQ. You can stop this lens to F6.3 or 7.1, shoot either on a tripod, or handheld/monopod w/IS and get very sharp bird photos. Would you like an f-4 lens that will really throw the background out? That's thousands of dollars and many pounds to carry. With a slower lens you just have to be more careful in your composition, eg keeping some separation between the bird and the background.

I am biased against converters,meaning, if you need it once in a while fine, but if you're going to be using a lens most of the time at 400mm, get a lens that reaches that w/o the converter.

Try a 400 f/2.8 + 2x on a gimbal on a 1D4 - different world to a 100-400 hand held. The biggest problem with stopping down is getting fast enough shutter speed. High shutter speed is more key than high lens IQ unless you are aiming for wall size prints.

 

[KeithR]

Re: Response from a bird photographer's perspective

Try a 400 f/2.8 + 2x on a gimbal on a 1D4 - different world to a 100-400 hand held.

Well, in terms of weight, inconvenience, expense, unresponsiveness, hassle and general joylessness, that's true.

In terms of IQ? Maybe not so much at all.

With my 100-400mm (which is a good one, I admit) I've stood should-to-shoulder more times than I can count, with bird 'togs wielding 500mm and 600mm f/4s with TCs, the 800mm f/5.6, 300mm f/2.8 + TC, and umpteen other variations on the long lens theme, and almost without exception nobody has been able to pick out which images came from my zoom and which came from the Big Guns - it was quite a popular game we played, back in the day, on Birdforum.net.

And I've also lost count of the number of times I've seen an bird's eye-level photo op - shooting waders on their level on the beach at Titchwell in Norfolk for example - where I've been able to get down onto my belly, get the shot(s), and be up and and away to the next opportunity before the guy with the Gitzo, gimbal and big white bazooka has even been able to get his tripod legs spread flat out.

I can get lower than him too (lower is better for those shots), and that's assuming the bird is even still there by the time Mr Plenty-Money-To-Spend has managed to get his arse into gear.

The simple fact is that there are significant ergonomic disadvantages to using the full tripod/gimbal/long lens/TC approach in bird photography, and - frequently, assuming a good copy of the 100-400mm, some basic fieldcraft skills and good handholding technique (all of which I have, thanks) - often surprisingly little Real World advantage from the "heavyweight" kit over the zoom and a more mobile, flexible approach, in IQ terms.

It's not all about how much money you've spent on your kit...