Compare Canon 100-400 L to Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 2X TC

5

501cards

Suspended / Banned
Messages
778
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
OK,

Most of my work is with the Canon 70-200 2.8 II L, but sometimes I need the reach of the 100-400.

Having been a Hater of TCs from old, I have been on the fence, get the 2X TC and use it with the 70-200 or carry a 100-400 for the times the reach is needed.

As far as I saw it the following came into play

70-200 + Canon 2x II TC

+++ Cost (A Lot cheaper than having a seperate 100-400 sitting around doing nothing)

+++ Weight (A Lot lighter having a TC in the bag rather than the 100-400

100-400

+++ Image Quality

So finally on a wet dull day I have them all sat on my desk with the chance to try out the options

Setup - £20 Note wedged on monitor on my desk, 5DII Body on Tripod 2 Meters from Target

Below are compressed images, with a link to the full size jpg below them

Although both tests are at 400mm (70-200 + TC & 100-400), The Magnifcation on the 100-400 images is smaller, not sure if this is due ot the TC Moving the lens further from the image plane, but I thought as the image plane stayed in the same place it should not have affected it?., But something affected the magnification by about 15%

All images were focused on ther circle dead centre of the note, but due to tripod angle there is some variance on DOF between the 2 lenses

1: 100-400 @ f5.6

100400f56400S.jpg


http://www.stageshoot.co.uk/files/100400f56400.jpg

2 70-200 @ f5.6 (Inc 2 Stop Loss from 2x TC)

70200f56400S.jpg


http://www.stageshoot.co.uk/files/70200f56400.jpg

3: 100-400 @ f8

100400f8400S.jpg


http://www.stageshoot.co.uk/files/100400f8400.jpg


4 70-200 @ f8 (Inc 2 Stop Loss from 2x TC)

70200f8400S.jpg


http://www.stageshoot.co.uk/files/70200f8400.jpg


5: 100-400 @ f11

100400f11400S.jpg


http://www.stageshoot.co.uk/files/100400f11400.jpg


6 70-200 @ f11 (Inc 2 Stop Loss from 2x TC)

70200f11400S.jpg


http://www.stageshoot.co.uk/files/70200f11400.jpg


Having done this I am suprised how little variation in the image quality there is between both lenses at all f stops,

For the drop in quality I may have to put my preconceptions about TCs aside and live with it from now for the odd time I need the extra reach.

2KG Saved and about £700 less, for the 1 lens + TC combination,

Am I mad, should I ignore this and stick to my thoughts that the 2 dedicated lenses is a better solution
 
Last edited:
Although not a lot in it I would say the 70-200 w/TC is sharper at all apertures so it would make sense to go with this combination without even considering the weight and cost saving benefits.
 
Strange about the magnification change.

The 100-400 is a rear focussing lens, so probably loses some focal length at very close distances, I think I've heard someone say it becomes more like between 340-370mm at minimum focus distance, which would account for the difference assuming the 70-200 doesn't suffer the exact same phenomenon.
All the big tele-zooms seem to do this.

The quality of the 100-400 seems a bit sharper to me, but it's hard to tell.
Certainly if you already have the 70-200II it's much better to buy a 2x than the 100-400 and adds a lot less weight, but the cost of the 70-200II and 2x combined is nearly double the 100-400.
The IS and weather sealing should still be better on the 70-200II + 2x combo as well.

Just shows how good the optics on the 70-200II are that it handles a 2x so well.

Certainly in your shoes I would go for the 2x.
 
Last edited:
I took delivery of a Canon 2x ll TC yesterday and set up a quick test shoot with my 5D2 bolted on to my 70-200mm 2.8 Mk1. I was really suppised at the IQ and the AF was fine so I will not be getting the 100-400mm. I dont need 400mm very oftain so this combo really does meet my needs.

As it was a slow day yesterday I also set up the same combo added a 1.4 ll TC giving me 560mm, and while the IQ wasn't perfect, again I was supprised of what came out of the camera.

Ian
 
I bought the 2X off here on a whim, hence having it to test,

So now have all 3, the 70-200 II the 2X II and the 100-400

As I mentioned I really did not think the 2X II would produce the results so sort of ignored it in the past, (Although I think its the 70-200 II that makes it shine)

So just depends now I did this to sort of prove to myself one way or the other, but am still finding hard to consider selling the 100-400!
 
vulcan2912 said:
The 100-400 deffo looks sharper and more contrasty to me.Would you notice this in real world shooting I don't know.Would the 70-200 not be even better with the new 2x version 3 tcon.

Cheers
Gary
Click to expand...

Probably Better with the III, but thats at least another couple of hundred notes, making it even nearer the 100-400 price.
 
Go to the www.the-digital-picture.com and load up comparisons between the two. They are very close! And the Mk3 extender is even better.

I used to share your reservations about telecons, but most of it is down to the quality of the mother lens, and the 70-200 Mk2 is superb. TBH I think this lens plus extender is Canon's answer to the replacement of the 100-400L which has been rumoured for so long, and if you look at it as a kind of 70-400mm 2.8-5.6 'zoom' it is something of a bargain.

I think that if you do the same test at greater distance you will not see such a difference in focal length, but as Squishy says all tele-zooms do it at close range to some extent.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this. I have a 70-200II and keep thinking about a 2x to go with it. Now the only question is whether to get a MkII or splash out for a MkIII
 
Agree with you on that, it does look like its all down to the 70-200 being such good glass,

I am supposed ot be chopping trees in the garden this morning, but may make an excuse and use the time to try test at longer distances :D



HoppyUK said:
Go to the www.the-digital-picture.com and load up comparisons between the two. They are very close! And the Mk3 extender is even better.

I used to share your reservations about telecons, but most of it is down to the quality of the mother lens, and the 70-200 Mk2 is superb. TBH I think this lens plus extender is Canon's answer to the replacement of the 100-400L which has been rumoured for so long, and if you look at it as a kind of 70-400mm 2.8-5.6 'zoom' it is something of a bargain.

I think that if you do the same test at greater distance you will not see such a difference in focal length, but as Squishy says all tele-zooms do it at close range to some extent.
Click to expand...
 
OK so shirking the tree cutting a bit for this morning,

Here are some results at distance,

70-200 + Canon 2x II TC Vs 100-400 (1/1000 at f5.6 & 1.500 at f8)


Firstly the maginfication difference has gone, so as someone kindly pointed out, that must be due to the 100-400 losing length close up,

As for the results, the 100-400 just seems to have the edge at this distance I think, but its still darn close.

Overview of Test Image

70200f56S.jpg



100% Crop of 70-200 + TC @ f5.6

70200f56C.jpg


100% Crop of 100-400 @ f5.6

100400f56C.jpg


100% Crop of 70-200 + TC @ f8

70200f8C.jpg


100% Crop of 100-400 @ f8

100400f8C.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice test!
You can see that the 100-400 is sharper, but it's only a small tradeoff if you don't have the funds for it.
 
May consider this option as i could do with a 70-200
Is the af on the tc combo up to the speed of the 100-400?
 
Thats a good test from 501cards there.

That shows what I see in real life with TC's quite accurately.

The main cause of complaint when using a 70-200 2.8 with a TC is simply that without one it is a stunning piece of glass and adding the TC you just feel like you are missing something. Thats the problem as I see it anyway :)

I would tend to suggest the sweet spot is f9 or f10 though for a 2x, you might well find an improvement if you want to test it again.

Obviously being limited to f9 or f10 can be an issue, if you think its not then you just havent taken enough photos ;-)
 
Dan74 said:
May consider this option as i could do with a 70-200
Is the af on the tc combo up to the speed of the 100-400?
Click to expand...

Very similar beween the 2 as far as AF goes

and of course 70-200 is bulkier than the 100-400 in collapsed poisiton for walking around, but at working 400mm extension very similar wieght and balance.

With regards testing at f10ish, will try that in a day or so all packed up now as I have been whipped back into tree felling by she who must be obeyed! :bonk:

My Conclusions are

The 70-200 + TC is a great alternative and a cash saver, and only a minimal IQ tradeoff, if I had not already got the 100-400 I would have gone with that option,

But as I have the 100-400 already I am going to keep it for times when I think it comes into its own, and leave it at home other times, but carry the 2X TC for the 70-200 which is always with me (Does that make sense!)
 
I'd agree its a cheap(ish) lightweight, low bulk way of adding some flexibility, but if your main use is 400mm, there are better alternatives - albeit more expensive.

A 300mm with a 1.4x is excellent if you can live without zoom, which probably by the time you get to 400mm you are permanently at 400mm and still cropping after that!
 
I'll tell you what though, looking at those Ritz crackers has made me really hungry!
 
Interesting test and results. I would say the 100-400 looks a bit sharper but not by much. Give them an tiny bit of sharpening in Lightroom and I reckon they would look almost identical.

The thing is with the TC and 70-200 you get a damn fine 70-200 so in the 100-200mm range it will be better than the 100-400.

Not of much relevance to this thread but wasn't there a rumour of a 100-400 mkII? That could be a seriously tasty bit of kit.

Andy S
 
The 100-400 II has been rumoured for ages.
But look at what they've done with the 70-300L. Looking at the optical quality of that, I could see them replacing the 100-400 with a lens that performs very nearly as well as the 400/5.6L prime.
I'd expect the price to go up over £1.5K as well, maybe even as high as >£2k on release, but that's just pure speculation based on the price of the 70-300L and the way the 70-200 f/2.8's price jumped up for the excellent mark II of that lens
It'll certainly be an interesting lens if they ever get around to making it!
 
Last edited:
501cards said:
OK so shirking the tree cutting a bit for this morning,

Here are some results at distance,

70-200 + Canon 2x II TC Vs 100-400 (1/1000 at f5.6 & 1.500 at f8)


Firstly the maginfication difference has gone, so as someone kindly pointed out, that must be due to the 100-400 losing length close up,

As for the results, the 100-400 just seems to have the edge at this distance I think, but its still darn close.

Overview of Test Image

<snip>
Click to expand...

They're very close, but there's fractionally more exposure with the 100-400L which is helping it a bit.

TBH in the real world I think you'd be hard pressed to separate them on central sharpness, it's at the edges and corners where you'll see most difference but other tests (eg TheDigtitalPicture) actually shows them to be damn close there as well.

Edit: BTW 1/500sec for the f/8 tests is marginal at 400mm, even with IS or on a tripod, if you're looking for ultimate sharpness at 100%. Probably okay, but bumping up from ISO100 to ISO400 on a 5D2 would be fine and totally eradicate that possible variable.
 
Last edited:
Interesting results. I've been toying with the idea of a TC for a while, though I suspect it wouldn't look so good with the Mk1 70-200 (which I own).

In the meantime, I have adopted an alternate strategy of buying a Panasonic G2 and putting my FD 70-210 on the front of it to obtain a 420mm f/4 :D
 
Last edited:
I'd like to know the image quality of the 100-400 with the 2X. That would give you a 200 to 800.
 
Rocket58 said:
I'd like to know the image quality of the 100-400 with the 2X. That would give you a 200 to 800.
Click to expand...

Soft, f/11, no AF :thumbsdown:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top