canon 100-400 v 70-200 + 2x converter

SpikeK6

SpikeK6

Messages
3,534
Name
Spike
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi
After some feedback/thoughts on this idea.

Been looking for a long lens and was looking at the canon 100-400mm 4.5/5.6L usm IS but after reading a thread on here today I am not so sure about this now.

My thoughts where I could get a much better deal if I went down this route.

Canon 70-200mm 2.8L usm IS with a 2x converter

Now that would give me a really sharp fast medium lens but with the 2x converter which people say still give really good IQ shots a long lens at the same time.

How much would the converter slow the lens down?? would I end up with nearly the same as the 100-400??

Just food for thought

Spike
 
I was wondering about this route when I knew I would be moving on my 100-400. In all my digging, the majority of people said that the IQ on the 70-200 with a 2x TC was below that of the 100-400.
 
there's a site somewhere that did this comparison in a fair bit of detail and the 100-400 was by far the better choice.

having said that, it will never give you F2.8 so a lot depends on what you're shooting
 
Forget it, one of the worse combo's available. OK you'll create a 140-400mm f5.6 lens with the 2x TC, but you also reduce autofocus lock by 75% and image quality takes a serious hit as well. TC's are primarily designed for primes, and usually work reasonably well, the 2x TC on a zoom doesn't. You might get away with the 1.4x TC, but even, then I would rather use my 300mm f4 instead.

The 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 is a versatile lens, ok it does have some quality issue with soft focusing, but its still canon's top selling lens.

Other alternatives are, sigma 100-300mm f4, stonking lens, the sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 seems to get rave reviews on budget, or there the 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 primes
 
You will lose 2 stops with the 2x teleconverter so the 70-200 f2.8 will become 140-400 f5.6.

I can't advise on image quality as I'm not familiar with the Canon lenses or how good the Canon converter is but I know with the Zuiko lenses I use the I got very good results when using a 50-200 2.8-3.5 lens with the 2x teleconverter.

Paul
 
Hi Spike
Having used the 100-400 and various other canon 2.8 Lenses I would be really sure that the x2 converter does not effect the AF on the 70-200mm....its my experience that putting a X2 converter on most long lenses does have a big effect on the lens performance.....so much so that I won't use a x2 now on anything.
Maybe a 1.4 converter combination would work better.....the 1.4 seems to be workable with most Long Canon Lenses.
The 100-400IS was a good lens and I did some good photography with it.....just a bit limited when the light was 'off'.....Camera Body ISO performance has moved on now and shooting at the higher ISO's is workable and effective.
I would try the X2 converter combination first if you can before you spend the money..........I did put a x2 on a 400 2.8 once.....in perfect light and it made the AF unworkable for shooting Aircraft......Bazza
 
I would be shooting mainly wildlife and the local sand racing and hillclimb and sprint here in guernsey.

I just thought it would be a step on the ladder to L glass and have the best of everything.

At the minute I have the canon 75-300 non IS which is pretty soft at the long end, so I was assuming that if the 70 200L with the converter was alot better then I would have a 2 lens in one till i could afford to get the 100 400 aswell

Sorry wrote this as another few replys came in.

Thanks guys for all the advice, looks like i will have to get saving

spike
 
The 70-200 has weather sealing which might be relevant if you're in a dusty/sandy environment. Won't be fully effective if you're not using a 1 series body but it's some reassurance.

Personally, I still think the 100-400 is the better lens overall.
 
SpikeK6 said:
I would be shooting mainly wildlife and the local sand racing and hillclimb and sprint here in guernsey.

I just thought it would be a step on the ladder to L glass and have the best of everything.

At the minute I have the canon 75-300 non IS which is pretty soft at the long end, so I was assuming that if the 70 200L with the converter was alot better then I would have a 2 lens in one till i could afford to get the 100 400 aswell

spike
Click to expand...

You do realise the canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS is £1400, 2x TC is £280.
The 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 is £1190 (UK prices)
 
The 100-400 was always my first choice but it was just after reading a thread on here today got me thinking. It is a very popular lens and will do what I want it for.

this is why I asked the question just to clear matters up.
 
pete.rush said:
You do realise the canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS is £1400, 2x TC is £280.
The 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 is £1190 (UK prices)
Click to expand...

Yes did check the prices but it was just rational thinking to have a quick medium lens with a long lens with a converter and have two really good L glass lens for the price of one if you see what i mean.

But after all thats been said i will stick with plan A and go for 100 400
 
Glad I stumbled into this thread. A question I would of needed answered a few months down the line also (y)
 
100-400L wins. Here's a direct comparison - you can compare just about any Canon lens on The Digital Picture.com http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

I have a theory that the new 70-200L 2.8 IS MkII will work much better with a 2x extender than anything previously - it's the only reason I can think of that makes it worth £1k more than the MkI version. We'll find out pretty soon - could be worth waiting for (maybe) ;)
 
I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and a 2X convertor. I bought it because it's very rare that I need anything over 200mm so wasn't going to buy a long lens. AF is slow, like, really slow. The IQ takes a hit obviously, but it's not as bad as people often make out, very useable.

The only time I've used it in anger was shooting cricket so the AF wasn't too much of a problem. I wouldn't want to be using it on fast paced stuff though. I had a quick play on some kite-surfers when I first got it and it wasn't too bad in bright daylight, anything else, I think you'd be struggling really.
 
Thanks James Thats the answer I was looking for. still think it will be the 100-400 though as then I have the best of all worlds.
Thanks again

spike
 
Do not want to confuse you but if you do not mind the extra weight the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is an excellent lens you could consider and works perfectly well with the 1.4x TC as 170-420mm f4

I saw quite a few going for around £1000 used lately.
 
I did some side by side testing with the 100-400L and the 70-200 2.8L. The 2X TC seriously impacts IQ with the 70-200 2.8 which should be no surprise considering it's a zoom.

The 1.4X TC is a good performer on the 70-200 2.8L, but you need to stop down a couple of stops before it then arguably matches the performance of the 100-400L without converter, which means you're down to f.5.6 and losing the advantage of the 2.8 max aperture.

The 100-400L is by far your best bet. The 70-200 2.8 is a cracking lens, but best used within it's zoom range and no converter when it's a tack sharp performer and faster than a fast thing.
 
Yep, pretty straight forward I think. If you want a long zoom, buy a long zoom.

If you want a 70-200, buy a 70-200.

If you mainly want a 70-200 but occasionally need longer buy a 70-200 and a convertor of some sort (eg like me).

Lenses exist for a (financial) reason, if a convertor offered better value for frequent use, then the longer lens wouldn't continue in production.
 
Funnily enough the postman delivered my 70-200 2.8L Is and the 2X TC on the same day. I of course stuck both straight on the camera and went outside looking for a target. I couldn't believe my luck to see this Sparrow feeding young and I was standing virtually on top of them. It had been raining heavily for about 3 days so the birds were ravenous and totally ignoring me.

4336_17045508084649401431839.jpg


The IQ really isn't that good even at this image size, and the ability of the combo to resolve fine detail would decrease with subject distance. I'd definitely use the combo in a pinch of course, but the 100-400L is the better tool for the job.
 
CT said:
... but the 100-400L is the better tool for the job.
Click to expand...

Says it all really. A $2000 lens designed to shoot at that focal length is better than a $460 convertor + a lens not designed to shoot at that focal length.

You just have to decide which is more use to you, I shoot 70-200 more, so I bought that + a convertor. If I shot 200-400 more, I would've bought a different lens.
 
Don't get me wrong, the IQ with the 70-200 and 2X TC is better than we have any right to expect from a zoom, which says something about the quality of the lens, but the IQ loss is obvious.

Having spent a frustrating time trying to calibrate the 2XTC to both camera bodies with the 300mm 2.8 and the 500mm f4 the loss in IQ whilst less obvious is undoubtedly there, and there's a barrier you can't get past.

Coverters are a necessary evil sometimes, but if you can manage without - you're better off all day long without 'em. :D
 
Thanks for that CT.

I see what you mean about loss of IQ on the 200 with a converter.

Thanks

Yes James i do see the point of why there are so many different lens on the market and everyone of them has its place and a reason for that place. It was just after reading another thread that it got me thinking, but seeing and hearing what you guys have said then it will be one lens for one job.

Thanks again for all the replys

Spike
 
I have a 70-200/2.8 IS and a 100-400. The 70-200 is great for weddings, portraits, indoor sports and other low light situations. If you want smooth bokeh then that is the one to get. I have a 1.4X teleconverter but have never used it with the 70-200. I don't have a 2X.

The 100-400 is the lens I use whenever I need length. Whether at the zoo, photographing wildlife, including BIF, or a bit of motorsports, that is my lens of choice. Here is a shot from today with the 100-400, wide open at 400mm. It was shot raw and has had no edits except WB. I've also included a 100% crop.

20100206_140640_4340_LR.jpg


20100206_140640_4340_LR.jpg


For some other bird/BIF shots with the lens, take a look here - http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTig...gCI79rezMp_j1Ww#slideshow/5433029507027822674
 
oh wow tdodd I want one now, shame the bank manager say "no" at the moment.

Anybody want to sell there 100-400 L to me for £50 and make me really happy:p:D
 
Great, this is exactly what i was wondering. I already own the 70-200 F2.8 IS so was thinking about a an extender for it but don't think i will bother now :)
 
Have a look at the Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 lens as well. It is superior to the Canon 100-400L in many ways, and much, much cheaper
 
I own both the 100-400 and 70-200 f2.8, albeit the non IS version, frankly hardly ever feel the need to switch IS on on any lens.

I had the 100-400 for some time and was quite happy with it, other than it being a total dust sucker, when i used it with my 30D body it meant a sensor clean virtually every time it had been used, much better though on a self cleaning sensor body.

I always felt there was a 70-200 shaped hole in my kit, i borrowed a 70-200 f4 IS and while it was nice it wasn't imho spectacular. I ended up buying a non-!S f2.8 and simply love it, easy to handle, and simply stunning crisp images, I use the 100-400 a lot less now and I'm contemplating replacing it with a 300 prime and a 1.4 TC.

If you really think you need a 100-400 it is a very flexible lens, but has drawbacks, the performance of the 70-200 + a 1.4 TC is fine and for the sort of shooting you do, unless you use a slow shutter speed a lot I would plum for the non IS and 1.4 TC, sell your current lens and start saving for a 300 ;)
 
I used the Canon 100-400 many times and I also owned a 200mm 2.8 prime which I used extensively with both an 1.4x and a 2x TC.

At the moment I am using a 300mm 2.8 but I purchased a Sigma 150-500mm OS for my OH to replace her Sigma 120-400mm OS.

And this is after also having a Canon 70-300IS, a Canon 300mm f4 (with a Canon 1.4x TC) and a Sigma 100-300 for (with a Sigma 1.4TC).

In order of preference I would go with:
Sigma 150-500 (for the extra range and very good stabilization)
Canon 300mm f4 IS + 1.4TC (very good combo but no zoom)
Canon 100-400 or Sigma 120-400 (Canon is a bit sharper but the Sigma is much cheaper!)
Sigma 100-300 + 1.4TC (very sharp but no image stabilization)
Canon 200mm 2.8 + 2x TC (excellent lens by itself but I found that I was not too happy with the 2x TC combo, not bad considering but not as good as the choices above)

Hope this helps
 
RichardC27 said:
Have a look at the Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 lens as well. It is superior to the Canon 100-400L in many ways, and much, much cheaper
Click to expand...

Apart from owning one of these lens why do you think its far superior?? Have you owned the canon aswell??

spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
Apart from owning one of these lens why do you think its far superior?? Have you owned the canon aswell??

spike
Click to expand...

I can help answer this if you do not mind. Also I have read reviews is at least 3 magazines lately that rated the Sigmas (150-500 and 120-400) higher overall than the Canon for the same reasons. In addition to this the 150-500 was voted lens of the year in 2 publications (again this was mostly for the value of money it offers but for me this is important!)

+ Canon
a bit sharper (negligibly in my opinion but there you go)
starts from 100 and not 120mm
the AF is faster and more precise (not too much from my experience but for some people every little matters!)

+ Sigma
cheaper (costs less new than the Canon costs used)
the stabilization is a bit better (Sigma says 4-stops compared to 2-stops for the Canon but personally I would say that it is closer to 3-stops)
I prefer the zoom action (twist rather than pump for the Canon) but this again is a personal preference
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top