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

[briansquibb]

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...

I can see all the top pros rushing to sell their large whites and buying a 100-400 following this piece of well informed advice.

I just can't see why I would want to get flat on the ground to take a bird in flight though?

If I was taking birds on a beach my weapon of choice would be a handheld 400 + beanbag.

I dont think it is appropriate to be rude to people because of their choice of equipment any more than you would like people to be rude about you because of your kit.

 

[Tijn]

Re: Response from a bird photographer's perspective

I just can't see why I would want to get flat on the ground to take a bird in flight though?

Like he said, to be able to take pictures of birds "at their level". Probably to do with foreground/background framing.

 

[briansquibb]

Re: Response from a bird photographer's perspective

I just can't see why I would want to get flat on the ground to take a bird in flight though?

Like he said, to be able to take pictures of birds "at their level". Probably to do with foreground/background framing.

Perhaps it is just that most of the birds I take pictures of a fly above me - like herons, buzzards ec

If ground level was needed then the beanbag is the way to go - however it is difficult to spin round quickly when lying face down :

Here is a simple bird in flight picture taken recently, handheld 1d4 + 400 f/2.8@f/5

 

[smirkypants]

You know, there's always the Sigma 120-300/2.8 + 1.4. I've no personal experience, but I've heard that relative to the 100-400 it's pretty good and the price is fairly reasonable. It gives you around 170mm-420mm focal range at f4.

Maybe I'll rent it and see.

 

[briansquibb]

Just went into my garden and took this. Dont think a 100-400 would get close to this 8)


1d4, 400 f/2.8 + 2x

 

[PixelReaper]

You know, there's always the Sigma 120-300/2.8 + 1.4. I've no personal experience, but I've heard that relative to the 100-400 it's pretty good and the price is fairly reasonable. It gives you around 170mm-420mm focal range at f4.

Maybe I'll rent it and see.

After you mentioned this lens I checked it out at LR's. Downside is its a beast compared to other zooms and even some of the tele primes. 6lbs!!! 8)

Also Rogers take was that it is not sharp enough for prints over 8-10". He was comparing against the canon 300 f/2.8.

 

[herbert]

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.

The original link had the 70-200 + 1.4 @ f4. When they are both at f5.6 it is a bit more even:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

The zoom+extender shows less CA and distortion. However it is softer, particularly in the midframe.

I recently poured over these sample crops when deciding whether to buy the 2x extender for my 70-200 f2.8 or to buy the 400mm f5.6 for extra reach when birding. I decided on the 400mm f5.6 prime as a dedicated birding lens. However I do already have the zoom so this is less relevant to the OP.

I think that as Neuro demonstrated with his images either option will be able to deliver good images. The images will be far worse than the difference between them with slight mistakes during your image capture and workflow. I'd probably choose the 100-400 for its great versatility. Having to switch in and out an extender would get tedious. Get the lens, hone your technique and enjoy your photos.

 

[Loswr]

Just went into my garden and took this. Dont think a 100-400 would get close to this

Not so sure...


EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 200


EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 125

Yes, it's 640mm vs. 1040mm FF-equivalent, but not too different in terms of pixels on target.

 

[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.

The original link had the 70-200 + 1.4 @ f4. When they are both at f5.6 it is a bit more even:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

The zoom+extender shows less CA and distortion. However it is softer, particularly in the midframe.

I recently poured over these sample crops when deciding whether to buy the 2x extender for my 70-200 f2.8 or to buy the 400mm f5.6 for extra reach when birding. I decided on the 400mm f5.6 prime as a dedicated birding lens. However I do already have the zoom so this is less relevant to the OP.

I think that as Neuro demonstrated with his images either option will be able to deliver good images. The images will be far worse than the difference between them with slight mistakes during your image capture and workflow. I'd probably choose the 100-400 for its great versatility. Having to switch in and out an extender would get tedious. Get the lens, hone your technique and enjoy your photos.

Good catch Herbert. At f/5.6 the center sharpness delta is pretty negligible. Also good point about using the lens with the desired native focal length/aperature . For me, that's 70-200 @ f/2.8 with only occasional 400mm f/5.6 use.

By the way. I will be getting the 2xIII TC from lensrentals on thursday to test with the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II. I will try and post some 400mm samples over the weekend.

 

[briansquibb]

Just went into my garden and took this. Dont think a 100-400 would get close to this

Not so sure...


EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 200


EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 125

Yes, it's 640mm vs. 1040mm FF-equivalent, but not too different in terms of pixels on target.

I could have shot a larger bird to prove the point - those birds I took were 2 inches long .... the pigeon was bigger than full frame

 

[Loswr]

Yes, I could have shot a larger bird to prove the point - those birds I took were 2 inches long .... the pigeon was bigger than full frame

Good point - the warbler was ~4" long (although he fills the frame). The mockingbird was considerably bigger. I've got a nice great blue heron shot, too.

 

[briansquibb]

Yes, it's 640mm vs. 1040mm FF-equivalent, but not too different in terms of pixels on target.

So do you think an image taken from the same distance with a 100-400 on an APS-C will be as good IQ as a 400 f/2.8 + 2x on a 1.3/ff?

It would be a big crop on the APS-C which does not help the bg blur at all

 

[Marsu42]

Here is a simple bird in flight picture taken recently, handheld 1d4 + 400 f/2.8@f/5

Nobody disputes that taking low-iso pictures of moving objects requires extremely expensive gear. And with your equipment, I guess you earned the "richest person in the thread" award. However, I opened this thread "Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L" because of budget considerations - but you can feel free to open another thread "Best bird shots with the most expensive gear"...

Just went into my garden and took this. Dont think a 100-400 would get close to this 8)

I think your second shot of a sitting bird is just average - you don't need 2.8 for that, in fact the opposite: the dof pane of 2.8 is too thin (not every bird is directly in front of a backgound that has to be blurred). And no one needs gear that cost as much as a trip around the world for that - you can also just move closer. I recently took a similar shot with my non-is 100 macro lens (well, actually it was sharper than yours ). Btw, I don't post my pictures because I think these are too individual to judge lenses, and a picture contest is not helpful to me.

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.

To throw in some constructive pieces of information once in a while - I just came back from my local electro store where I had a try with the popular "big white leneses" on my crop body. Of course these were random samples of these lenses, but I'll post my results anyway because iq is not everything:

* 70-200/2.8is2 + extender: For me, this is just too front-heavy (very long, nearly 2kg!) for a 60D, and my left arm hurt after one minute. Furthermore, the iq with the extenders (tried 1,4x & 2x) was quite bad because of massive CAs - I admit in a worst-case scenario, shooting skylights in a shop. CAs can be correctly easily in LR4, but well, they're there. For a crop body (!), I don't think this is a good combination, even as an intermediary step before upgrading to full frame. I agree to many other people: An extender seems to be a nice occasional add-on, but if you want 300 or 400 get a native lens.

* 100-400: Seems to be quite nice if you like the push-pull (and apparently its zoom creep). Quite front-heavy on a 60D, too. iq seems to be ok. The real question for me is here: "Do I need the 300-400 range or the 70-100 for less lens changes?"

* 100-300: This is obviously (also) made for crop bodies, it is apparent the second you put this lens on a 60D. Because of short lenght, it is very balanced, iq is just fine, and even f4 instead of f4.5 @100mm. I'll get this one, because I think I can get quite far when using 300mm on a crop body and then cut out the part I want out of a sharp picture. And I'll be happy every time I can put this short lens + body in my backpack without a problem.

 

[briansquibb]

Nobody disputes that taking low-iso pictures of moving objects requires extremely expensive gear. And with your equipment, I guess you earned the "richest person in the thread" award. However, I opened this thread "Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L" because of budget considerations - but you can feel free to open another thread "Best bird shots with the most expensive gear"...

I was responding to a post that suggested the opposite

I think your second shot of a sitting bird is just average - you don't need 2.8 for that, in fact the opposite: the dof pane of 2.8 is too thin (not every bird is directly in front of a backgound that has to be blurred). And no one needs gear that cost as much as a trip around the world for that - you can also just move closer. I recently took a similar shot with my non-is 100 macro lens (well, actually it was sharper than yours ). Btw, I don't post my pictures because I think these are too individual to judge lenses, and a picture contest is not helpful to me.

As stated this was taken with a 400 f/2.8 + 2x - so was taken at f/5.6 It was also taken on sRAW as I was trying for BIF

As for moving closer - I was about 6ft from this 2inch bird. Closer would not have worked as it would have flown.

OK no more pictures then from me.

 

[Marsu42]

As stated this was taken with a 400 f/2.8 + 2x - so was taken at f/5.6

Yup, you're right - thanks for reminding me, I obviously have no experience using a converter ... as for posting pictures, there's no harm posting a link to a flickr account, I just think they irritate a bit esp. when they are quoted for the n-th time

As for stepping closer, my very personal experience from the outdoors is that many birds are quite tame if I move very, very, very slowly towards them - or I would never have gotten any good shots w/ my 100mm lens. This obviously isn't true if anyone has build a camo shelter, wants to shoot a specific bird and does this for a living, then you'll really need a long tele lens.

 

[bigblue1ca]

* 70-200/2.8is2 + extender: For me, this is just too front-heavy (very long, nearly 2kg!) for a 60D, and my left arm hurt after one minute.

I guess we all have different experiences, but, for the benefit of anyone else who may read this and is considering a 70-200 2.8 IS II, I'll offer the opposite view. I've had my 70-200 2.8 IS II since last summer and while it weighs more than my 50 or 16-35, I have no problem shooting sports for hours using the exact same set up 60D 70-200. (sometimes with an extender). YMMV.

 

[herbert]

This thread has discussed a lot about how good the images from each lens can be. This seems to be a mute point given that all of them can produce good images.

I find a better differentiator of equipment is how many images you miss. No one ever talks about the ones that got away. This will then favour the lenses with IS for low light (allowing more shutter speed options) and responsive and consistent autofocus. In this respect I would expect a more modern lens to perform better. However it requires a lot of field testing and not a few sample shots of a test chart/static subject. Anyone have any thoughts on the keeper rate under difficult shooting circumstances for the 70-200+2x verses the 70-300L or 100-400L?

I'd be very annoyed if I kept missing moments because the lens I use was not consistent and accurate.

 

[bigblue1ca]

Anyone have any thoughts on the keeper rate under difficult shooting circumstances for the 70-200+2x verses the 70-300L or 100-400L?

I can only speak to the 70-200. With the 2x III extender, it's far from lightning fast, whereas with the 1.4 isn't not bad, as everyone knows without an extender it's lightning fast, but it's also not 400mm at that point. Granted I'm only using a 60D, so perhaps a 1DIV/1DX would have better results.

 

[Marsu42]

I've had my 70-200 2.8 IS II since last summer and [...] I have no problem shooting sports for hours using the exact same set up 60D 70-200. (sometimes with an extender). YMMV.

It's interesting to hear different perspectives - that's why I'm writing this, after all. But I have to ask again after my test with the 70-200/2.8+extender combination (and I'm your average strength guy): You shoot *hours* without a pause and without a monopod? Did your endurance improve by usage compared to the point when you bought the lens?

Anyone have any thoughts on the keeper rate under difficult shooting circumstances for the 70-200+2x verses the 70-300L or 100-400L?

A couple of questions:

* Isn't the keeper rate more dependent on the af-quality of the body than the one in the lens (if you've got a somewhat current ring-type USM, that is)?
* Or does the body only matter when using servo af, and the lens matters more for one-shot af?
* Is a fast af equal to a precise af?

 

[bigblue1ca]

You shoot *hours* without a pause and without a monopod? Did your endurance improve by usage compared to the point when you bought the lens?

Q1) I don't shoot for hours without taking the camera away from my eye if that's what you are asking, I wouldn't want to do that with a P&S let along a DSLR with a 70-200...lol. I shoot for hours in the sense that I regularly shoot between one to three games in a row depending on the day of hockey or ringette (and last fall soccer sometimes). All of which involve continuously following the action (usually following the puck, ring, or ball) and looking through the viewfinder/lens at the same time.

Q2) I don't know if it's a case so much of my endurance improved, as I don’t think that was a issue for me. But, it did take a little to get used to holding the camera and lens, when I wasn’t previously used to holding a larger lens. But to put this all in perspective, one of the reasons I love the 70-200 is the weight of it, I just like the way it feels to hold, it's nice and stable. When I'm shooting sports or anything for that matter, I don't even notice the camera or lens weight, it doesn't bother me and I'm focused on getting the shots I want and the action.

I've never used a monopod or even thought of using one, as I’m not uncomfortable; if I ever got a 400 2.8 I'd certainly look at that. When shooting sports, I only use a hand strap on the camera, the Canon E2. If I'm out for the day hiking, walking about, or visiting the zoo, I use my Black Rapid strap and find it very comfortable to carry my camera and the lens.