I used to use the venerable 100-400 for wildlife and bird shots. After I bought the 70-200 f2.8 II I started to use that, coupled with the 2x III extender, for the same purposes. I had read mostly negative reviews about extenders, but, to my amazement, the images I get out of this combo are nothing short of astonishing. IQ is equal, or even superior, to the one produced by the 100-400. Autofocus speed, however, takes a hit, which is visible. Still, that to me seems to be a bit faster than the autofocus speed on the 100-400. I'm tempted to use the combo, instead of the 100-400, now, but its weight discourages me to do that, if I'm shooting without a tripod. What do you guys think?
The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
- Thread starter DaveMiko
- Start date
I am in the process of making the same decision myself. I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm. My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo. I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).
Upvote
0
DaveMiko said:
I have the same combo Dave. I love them both but when I'm shooting birds and such, I usually grab my 100-400mm with my 5D MkIII.
I used to use my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II on my 7D more than my 100-400mm but after using the focus software on both, my 100-400mm became like a brand new lens to me, nailing focus very accurately and leaving me very, very pleased!
Today I shot with both, so I'm going to be paying a little more attention in post to compare and see what I like better. I was shooting a soccer match and used each lens about 1/2 the game...
I started with the 100-400mm and switched at half time to the 70-200mm. I didn't use my extender, I wanted to see if I lost anything in cropping and still gained anything in IQ.
Right away, I saw a significant difference on the screen on camera. The IQ and DR seemed better with the 70-200mm but I'll arrest final judgement till after I get them on my pc for processing...
I've just really loved my 100-400mm again after running it through ;D FoCal...
Upvote
0
Here's how I figure it...the 100-400 is ~7.5" long. The 70-200 II + 2xIII is ~10" long....just like the 300/2.8 II (with the hood reversed). 
Upvote
0
It's a common predicament. I bought my 100-400 in 2005 because my 50-500 Sigma was wrecked after someone tried to steal it and it smashed to the ground. i needed a replacement quickly because I shoot a lot of cricket and we were about to stuff the Aussies and the insurance was advising a few more days to settle!
That lens went all over the world with me and i loved it. The "upgrade" bug got to me and I sold it towards the cost of a Sigma 120-300 Sport earlier this year. to use with my 1DX. Great lens optically but impractical (weight and bulk) so I tried the 70-200 ISII with a 1.4X but the improvement was minimal so I am thinking of buying another 100-400!!!
That lens went all over the world with me and i loved it. The "upgrade" bug got to me and I sold it towards the cost of a Sigma 120-300 Sport earlier this year. to use with my 1DX. Great lens optically but impractical (weight and bulk) so I tried the 70-200 ISII with a 1.4X but the improvement was minimal so I am thinking of buying another 100-400!!!
Upvote
0
DaveMiko said:
I agree with your analysis. I returned my 100-400 in favor of the 70-200 with 2x and 1.4 extenders. The AF lock on the 70-200 is much better. I discovered that the 100-400 wide open suffers from coma issues and the AF system has some trouble with that. The 70-200 is pretty sharp all the way open and allows the AF system to do a better phase detect on edges. I believe the AF is slightly faster too but difference is really not noticeable. What is noticeable is that I had more keepers and less missed shots due to AF hunting. You can also just use the 70-200 as a portrait lens. The combos give many more options.
Upvote
0
I tried the 7D / 70-200 f2.8 IS II / 2X III combination. Intitial shots showed severe Front Focus Issues, so I exchanged that extender for another. I really wanted this combination to work for me, so I tackled lens Microadjustment. What I discovered was that at 400mm, the setup was fairly accurate, (although also somewhat inconsistant) with little or no adjustment needed, but at 200mm I needed to adjust focusing to +12 on the -20 to +20 scale. I decided this was not going to work for me, so I returned the second extender.
The reason I purchased the 70-200 in the first place over the 100-400, was I felt I could use the 2X extender to get to 400mm. Eventually I will probably end up getting the 100-400.
The reason I purchased the 70-200 in the first place over the 100-400, was I felt I could use the 2X extender to get to 400mm. Eventually I will probably end up getting the 100-400.
Upvote
0
(Long time CR lurker/reader, first time poster)
I had+have both, and got the 70-200 II plus TCs as a replacement for my 100-400, which I upgraded to a Sigma 120-300 OS as the main tele and made use of the same TCs. Sold the 100-400 (and 70-200 mk1) to cover some of the cost and obviously don't need to keep them anymore.
For the more travel situations I took the 70-200 II combo and I like using a shoulder bag (Crumpler 7MDH in this case). However the portability advantage of the 100-400mm soon became very apparent. As someone who is:
- more of a walking casual birder
- someone who prefers not walking around with a tele on the streets overseas; but still wanting "local bird shots" there
- just having a camera ready to go, e.g. in the car, or how I used to work next to an airport for the odd plane spotting
...
The constant assembly and dis-assembly of the setup was just annoying. To the point where I eventually picked up the 100-400 again when one came up for a decent price second-hand.
At the 400mm end (my copies anyway) the IQ is pretty much equivalent, slight edge to the 100-400. AF wise the 100-400mm "turns" slightly slower but is far more reliable for me. The 70-200 combo can suddenly just start hunting randomly in all but the best light. Weightwise, well, I've never been one to see the need for a tripod for a 70-200/100-400/50-500 style lens.
Obviously the 7-2 is a killer 70-200 and also a killer 280mm/4. But not exactly doing "wildlife" there typically lol.
TLDR - the portability is the winner for me ... and I do hope any new 100-400 II can maintain that.
neuroanatomist said:
I had+have both, and got the 70-200 II plus TCs as a replacement for my 100-400, which I upgraded to a Sigma 120-300 OS as the main tele and made use of the same TCs. Sold the 100-400 (and 70-200 mk1) to cover some of the cost and obviously don't need to keep them anymore.
For the more travel situations I took the 70-200 II combo and I like using a shoulder bag (Crumpler 7MDH in this case). However the portability advantage of the 100-400mm soon became very apparent. As someone who is:
- more of a walking casual birder
- someone who prefers not walking around with a tele on the streets overseas; but still wanting "local bird shots" there
- just having a camera ready to go, e.g. in the car, or how I used to work next to an airport for the odd plane spotting
...
The constant assembly and dis-assembly of the setup was just annoying. To the point where I eventually picked up the 100-400 again when one came up for a decent price second-hand.
At the 400mm end (my copies anyway) the IQ is pretty much equivalent, slight edge to the 100-400. AF wise the 100-400mm "turns" slightly slower but is far more reliable for me. The 70-200 combo can suddenly just start hunting randomly in all but the best light. Weightwise, well, I've never been one to see the need for a tripod for a 70-200/100-400/50-500 style lens.
Obviously the 7-2 is a killer 70-200 and also a killer 280mm/4. But not exactly doing "wildlife" there typically lol.
TLDR - the portability is the winner for me ... and I do hope any new 100-400 II can maintain that.
Upvote
0
dufflover said:
Thanks for the feedback Duff! Hmm, makes me think I should keep both! I'll just have to do some testing as well... I've been thinking about it for a long time but haven't been able to quite get there...
I hate selling a lens and then wishing I never had!
All the best and welcome to the forum!
Upvote
0
I went through a similar thought process when the 70-200 MKII first came out. I'd recently purchased a 300 (MkI, the MkII wasn't out) and was using that with a 1.4x extender, so the 100-400 was getting limited use. It didn't quite go to plan though, as the funds form the 100-400 went on a 24 f/1.4 MkII instead, then the next set of funds went on the 5D MkIII . Eventually, I did get the 70-200 MkII last January, just before going to Finland and I recently got the 2x MkIII extender. I haven't tested fully, but so far I am happy with the results. My reasoning was that the 70-200 could double up for use in low light (albeit shorter), so was more flexible for my use. I think the weight difference between the two is minimal (especially when used to carrying the 300). When I need to travel a bit lighter, I have the 70-200, if I need higher IQ or more responsive AF, then I have the 300, although, I would like something longer, so that I don't have to use an extender as much, but my funds have been diverted to something else instead.
. Eventually, I did get the 70-200 MkII last January, just before going to Finland and I recently got the 2x MkIII extender. I haven't tested fully, but so far I am happy with the results. My reasoning was that the 70-200 could double up for use in low light (albeit shorter), so was more flexible for my use. I think the weight difference between the two is minimal (especially when used to carrying the 300). When I need to travel a bit lighter, I have the 70-200, if I need higher IQ or more responsive AF, then I have the 300, although, I would like something longer, so that I don't have to use an extender as much, but my funds have been diverted to something else instead.
Upvote
0
I have some funds coming in for an article with pictures I sold. I will use part of those to get the 2x extender to my 70-200 2.8 II. I can't spend too much on gear as it's only a hobby so I will have to make do with that. I travelled last year with that combo, although the MkI 70-200, on motorbike and did fine. I don't mind weight and size very much.
Upvote
0
dufflover said:
When I want portable, I'll often sacrifice 100mm on the long end, and take my 70-300L.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Deleted member 381342
- Canon General 2