100-400L or 70-200L 2.8 IS & 2x TC

Trev4

Trev4

Messages
5,967
Name
Trev
Edit My Images
Yes
I am about to place an order for a 100-400L having tried one (Thanks CT), and was very impressed indeed.

I have had a thought though, and would appreciate an opinion.

For a little more cash, I could get a 70-200L f2.8 IS and a 2x converter, which would give me the same 400 reach, but with a 2.8 aperture. I am mainly interested in natural history photography, but want to retain as much versatility to do other types of photography as the mood takes me.

Would this combination retain AF right through the range, and do you think the quality would be as good as the 100-400 by itself.

I am a newbie and trying to get the right kit together rather than buying cheap and buying twice, having already done that up to now. I'm not saying the 100-400 is cheap, far from it, the lens was great to use, but if there is a better alternative that I should consider at this stage I would rather find out now than later.

Any opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks guys.
Trev
 
I've got the latter, and had the former. The former is a fantastic lens, as is the latter on it's own. The 2x extender does inevitably effect focus speed and IQ, however this seems to vary widely...I got to compare my set up side by side before I sold on the 100-400 and the difference was negligible. Whereas some people seem to deem their results unusable (maybe I just have lower standards ;))

The reason I went for the 70-200 set up is that I do weddings etc, and needed that 2.8 (the IS is handy too!). However, seeing as you want to do mostly natural history work, the 100-400 is probably the best bet as it gives you the entire focal length range in one solution, instead of swapping over lenses/TCs. Food for thought though, could you see yourself making use of what the 70-200 offers you on a professional basis in the future?
 
I went 70-200 + TC.

You loose AF speed/IQ with a TC, but gives you a much more versitle set up im with the fast 2.8 when no TC is used.

The push pull on the 100-400 I also think is cack and hate which is another reason i didnt touch it.
 
For the price of a 70-200L f2.8 IS and a 2x converter you could get a Sigma 70-200 AND a Sigma 150-500


If you get good copies you'll not notice the difference :)
 
mrgubby said:
For the price of a 70-200L f2.8 IS and a 2x converter you could get a Sigma 70-200 AND a Sigma 150-500


If you get good copies you'll not notice the difference :)
Click to expand...

Except in low light when you want a slow shutter speed and dont have a tripod. IS will help save the day then.

The sigma 70-200s are lovely bits of glass mind.
 
purpleclouds said:
Food for thought though, could you see yourself making use of what the 70-200 offers you on a professional basis in the future?
Click to expand...

Thanks purpleclouds, thats just the feedback and opinions I was hoping for. I am pleased to read your comments having owned both systems.
With regard to getting the best out of the 70-200 on a professional basis, no, I cant ever see me doing that, its a good point you made.

My use is purely for pleasure, but having said that, I do try to get the best out of my equipment and with the view that I can always improve by listening and learning, and thats half the fun.

It looks like my original decision was right and I'll stay with the 100-400.
Thanks a lot for your time.
Trev
 
fastworldimages said:
Except in low light when you want a slow shutter speed and dont have a tripod. IS will help save the day then.

The sigma 70-200s are lovely bits of glass mind.
Click to expand...

mrgubby said:
For the price of a 70-200L f2.8 IS and a 2x converter you could get a Sigma 70-200 AND a Sigma 150-500


If you get good copies you'll not notice the difference :)
Click to expand...

fastworldimages said:
I went 70-200 + TC.

You loose AF speed/IQ with a TC, but gives you a much more versitle set up im with the fast 2.8 when no TC is used.

The push pull on the 100-400 I also think is cack and hate which is another reason i didnt touch it.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys, your opinions are a real help and offer more options.
Trev
 
Trev4 said:
I am about to place an order for a 100-400L having tried one (Thanks CT), and was very impressed indeed.

I have had a thought though, and would appreciate an opinion.

For a little more cash, I could get a 70-200L f2.8 IS and a 2x converter, which would give me the same 400 reach, but with a 2.8 aperture. I am mainly interested in natural history photography, but want to retain as much versatility to do other types of photography as the mood takes me.

Would this combination retain AF right through the range, and do you think the quality would be as good as the 100-400 by itself.

I am a newbie and trying to get the right kit together rather than buying cheap and buying twice, having already done that up to now. I'm not saying the 100-400 is cheap, far from it, the lens was great to use, but if there is a better alternative that I should consider at this stage I would rather find out now than later.

Any opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks guys.
Trev
Click to expand...

You would have a 400mm with the x2 converter but you would have f5.6 not f2.8 as you stated ,still a nice combo though :thumbs:
 
Have a look at this web site.

Tell's you all you want to know about this often asked question :). But if you cba to read it, the result is that the 100-400 is the one to go for, just ;)
 
mxfun said:
You would have a 400mm with the x2 converter but you would have f5.6 not f2.8 as you stated ,still a nice combo though :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Grendel said:
Have a look at this web site.

Tell's you all you want to know about this often asked question :). But if you cba to read it, the result is that the 100-400 is the one to go for, just ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks both, mxfun's comment is one I should have known but didnt, shows my position on the learning curve lol, well down towards the bottom.

The link you sent Grendel was interesting reading, its prety well made my mind up.

Its so good to have all your valued opinions especially when I am still learning.
thanks.
Trev
 
Glad the info helped :). I have a 100-400 and absolutley love it! :thumbs:
 
Trev4 said:
For a little more cash, I could get a 70-200L f2.8 IS and a 2x converter, which would give me the same 400 reach, but with a 2.8 aperture.
Click to expand...

It won't be 2.8 at 400mm! I think it will be 5.6?
 
Simple. If you want/need to use 400mm, get the 100-400L. If you want/need to use f/2.8 (though only at 200mm or less), get the 70-200L. If you want/need to use both, then it gets tricky....
 
StewartR said:
Simple. If you want/need to use 400mm, get the 100-400L. If you want/need to use f/2.8 (though only at 200mm or less), get the 70-200L. If you want/need to use both, then it gets tricky expensive....
Click to expand...


fixed it for you ;)
 
isnt the IQ and AF from the 70-200 + 2x going to degrade beyond that of the 100-400 though?

only asking because i have a 70-200 already and was thinking about getting a 100-400, ive tried t/c's in the past and wasnt impressed..
 
Hi,

direct comparison HERE Just hover the mouse over the image and move from one side to the other to see both charts.

The 70-200 F2.8 with TC won't match the 100-400, I wasn't even impressed with my 70-200 F2.8 non IS and a 1.4x TC, only consider the F2.8 + TC if only required for record shots, if you want the reach then it has to be the 100-400 or a 400 prime or possibly even a used 300 F4 IS and 1.4x TC, or you should be looking at a used 70-200 F2.8 Non IS or Sigma version and a 400mm prime.

Mike.
 
^^^ Stewart is right of course.

But to the OP, why would Canon bother to make the 100-400 if you could do just as well with the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x extender, and get the benefits of the solo lens?
 
Just tried mine and I stand corrected works a treat and not that slow.
The reason for my original reply is I read on here the only cameras the x2 converter will AF on are 1D. so never tried it on my 50D
I also tried the 100-400 with my x1.4 and that would not work
 
rickj said:
Just tried mine and I stand corrected works a treat and not that slow.
The reason for my original reply is I read on here the only cameras the x2 converter will AF on are 1D. so never tried it on my 50D
I also tried the 100-400 with my x1.4 and that would not work
Click to expand...

20D/30D/40D/50D etc will AF up to f/5.6 (f/6.3 if you push it) 5D and 5D2 I'm pretty sure. Only 1D/1Ds go to f/8.

And no, my 40D won't auto-focus a 100-400L with 1.4x extender at the long end either, even with the 'pins taped' trick (which is useless).
 
Thanks everyone whos commented, the vote is unanimous (almost), certainly its confirmed to me that my original decision was right, just didnt want to buy the lens then find out there was a better alternative that I had overlooked.
As soon as Kerso returns I will be joining the 100-400 brigade, in fact I am looking forward to trying it out.
Will post some results as soon as I get the lens.
Thanks again to you all.
Trev
 
70-200L 2.8 IS & 2x TC is more flexible IMO. When you want <200mm you can take tc off and have a great quality lens with f/2.8!
 
packham said:
70-200L 2.8 IS & 2x TC is more flexible IMO. When you want <200mm you can take tc off and have a great quality lens with f/2.8!
Click to expand...

Only if f/2.8 matters. Actually from an FL point of view, the 70-200 only buys you 70-100 which is a small range. I was a devout 70-200 fan but now with my 24-105 and 100-400, I've a much more flexible solution.
 
200mm f2.8 prime and a 1.4x and 2x tc give you the same max reach with superior IQ (primes take TC's better than zooms do) or a 300 f4 with a 1.4x though you miss the shorter focal lengths


imho a 70-200f2.8 and a 300f4 and a 1.4 is the best option for flexibility vs weight, but way out on price
 
david1701 said:
imho a 70-200f2.8 and a 300f4 and a 1.4 is the best option for flexibility vs weight, but way out on price
Click to expand...


in that option - wouldn't buy the 300 as you'll get 280mm IS @ f/4 out of the 70-200 with 1.4 extender......would spend the same price as 300 on a 400mm prime and get some more length (sod IS it's not a necessity) :)
 
grumpybadger said:
Only if f/2.8 matters. Actually from an FL point of view, the 70-200 only buys you 70-100 which is a small range. I was a devout 70-200 fan but now with my 24-105 and 100-400, I've a much more flexible solution.
Click to expand...

That's a nice combo :) I have 24-105 on my 5D atm and looking to buy a telelens. Would 100-400 be any good in landscape, portrait? I thouht it's intended for wildlife which isn't much what I like to shoot.
 
Kryptix said:
Wrong, I tried this the other day in Jessops. Worked fine.
Click to expand...

Posted earlier

"Just tried mine and I stand corrected works a treat and not that slow.
The reason for my original reply is I read on here the only cameras the x2 converter will AF on are 1D. so never tried it on my 50D
I also tried the 100-400 with my x1.4 and that would not work"
 
The 100-400L won't AF at the short end with the 1.4x?
 
Kryptix said:
The 100-400L won't AF at the short end with the 1.4x?
Click to expand...
No. The 100-400L is f/4.5 at the short end. Put a 1.4x Extender on it and it becomes f/6.3. Canon bodies outside the 1D series won't AF if the maximum aperture is smaller than f/5.6.
 
StewartR said:
No. The 100-400L is f/4.5 at the short end. Put a 1.4x Extender on it and it becomes f/6.3. Canon bodies outside the 1D series won't AF if the maximum aperture is smaller than f/5.6.
Click to expand...

Sorry to pick you up on this Stewart, but my 100-400L and Kenko Pro 1.4x on a 40D would AF at the short end, at f/6.3, if you taped the pins. But it wouldn't at the long end, at f/8.

This proves that it is not the f/number as such that prevents AF, it is the phyisical diameter of the aperture as seen by the camera that does it, not the light level, and so taping the pins doesn't work past f/6.3 tops.

A few third party lenses use this bit of headroom to operate at the long end, eg Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, but they're sluggish. Presumably they also tell porkies to the camera, to stop it switching off AF past f/5.6.

As a thought, and considering how popular the 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 lenses are, if Canon was to make a 70-200 2.8 lens and dedicated 2x extender combination, that was specifically tailored with optimised optics, AF system and IS, how good would it be? It's not bad with the standard universal extender as it is. It would surely sell loads.
 
HoppyUK said:
This proves that it is not the f/number as such that prevents AF, it is the phyisical diameter of the aperture as seen by the camera that does it, not the light level, and so taping the pins doesn't work past f/6.3 tops.
Click to expand...
You've lost me there, I'm afraid.

My Sigma 4.5mm f/2.8 autofocuses very well, but the physical aperture must be less than 2mm in diameter.

But a 500mm f/4 with a 2x Extender won't AF, even though the physical aperture is over 100mm in diameter (and the apparent aperture, taking account of the effect of the Extender, is still over 50mm in diameter).

Have I grasped the wrong end of the stick?
 
StewartR said:
You've lost me there, I'm afraid.

My Sigma 4.5mm f/2.8 autofocuses very well, but the physical aperture must be less than 2mm in diameter.

But a 500mm f/4 with a 2x Extender won't AF, even though the physical aperture is over 100mm in diameter (and the apparent aperture, taking account of the effect of the Extender, is still over 50mm in diameter).

Have I grasped the wrong end of the stick?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I've explained it bady.

It's actually the diameter of the light cone that matters, as seen by the AF sensors. This is usually defined by the aperture, as it really only affects long lenses, but it's also a function of focal length and the angle at which the light cone enters the camera body.

Wide angles have wide light cones, but since they are never less than f/5.6 the situation never arises.

I think ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top