Mike Jackson
Billy Brownnose
- Messages
- 1,863
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I posted this in the equipment section but as it seems to be being asked quite frequently figured I'd stick it in here as well.
With my recent purchase of an EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM II lens I was wondering if it was worth hanging onto my EF 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens or getting a 2 x converter which would give me f/5.6 at the long end the same as the 100-400. Opinions were divided when I asked the question in the equipment forum including some that said it wouldn't AF.
I couldn't see why it wouldn't AF as the 100-400 happily focusses with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 so I went ahead and sourced a Canon 2 X Extender Mark II.
The first thing you notice about the combo is it is heavier than the 100-400. It didn't seem that much heavier to me but according to the specs it is over 300g heavier. This would probably be significant on a smaller body but I will be using it on a gripped 50D or 1D MK IV and these are both fairly weighty anyway. Despite the extra weight I found I could still shoot one handed with the combo which is useful as I'm quite often hanging in precarious positions with one arm wrapped around a tree. People of a smaller build than me may struggle with the weight though. According to Canon the actual weights are 100-400 1380g. 70-200 plus 2xextender 1715g.
My next concern was the AF. Would it be fast enough? I didn't actually notice any difference in the speed that it took to lock on to the subject. This was on the 1D MK IV so there may be a difference in focussing on a lower specced body.
A big plus for me is the fact that the 70-200 plus extender retains it's weather proofing on a 1D body whereas the 100-400 is not weather proof. I've missed some great shots in the past when I've felt obliged to pack my camera away when it's started to pee down so this is definitely a huge selling point.
Another benefit is ease of swapping focal lengths. In the past I have missed shots because I couldn't get the 100-400 out of my rucksack quickly enough. With the combo I can keep the extender in my pocket and carry out the swap a lot quicker. It's also quite a chunk of glass that I don't need to carry around.
Now to the cost. The 70-200 combo comes in at almost twice the price of a 100-400 but as I need the f/2.8 in the 70-200 range for the shots I take it actually comes down to the cost of a 2 x extender versus a 100-400.
Finally if you look at the images below you'll see that the quality of the combo is marginally less. If cost was no object I would certainly think about keeping the 100-400 but if cost was no object I'd be looking at 400 and longer primes to retain the weather sealing.
In summary I would say that if you already have a 70-200 look at using a 2 x extender as the slight loss in quality is outweighed by the benefits. With the MK III converter now out that may even take the quality up to or beyond that of the 100-400.
The images below were taken at ISO 200, f/8 AV mode on the 1D MK IV. I used the centre AF point on the head. the camera was in one shot AF mode, single shot.
70 -200 plus 2 x converter by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
100 - 400 by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
70 -200 100% crop by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
100 - 400 100% crop by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
70 - 200 100% crop 2 by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
100 - 400 100% crop 2 by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
I hope this review is helpful to those in the same dilemma as I was.
With my recent purchase of an EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM II lens I was wondering if it was worth hanging onto my EF 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens or getting a 2 x converter which would give me f/5.6 at the long end the same as the 100-400. Opinions were divided when I asked the question in the equipment forum including some that said it wouldn't AF.
I couldn't see why it wouldn't AF as the 100-400 happily focusses with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 so I went ahead and sourced a Canon 2 X Extender Mark II.
The first thing you notice about the combo is it is heavier than the 100-400. It didn't seem that much heavier to me but according to the specs it is over 300g heavier. This would probably be significant on a smaller body but I will be using it on a gripped 50D or 1D MK IV and these are both fairly weighty anyway. Despite the extra weight I found I could still shoot one handed with the combo which is useful as I'm quite often hanging in precarious positions with one arm wrapped around a tree. People of a smaller build than me may struggle with the weight though. According to Canon the actual weights are 100-400 1380g. 70-200 plus 2xextender 1715g.
My next concern was the AF. Would it be fast enough? I didn't actually notice any difference in the speed that it took to lock on to the subject. This was on the 1D MK IV so there may be a difference in focussing on a lower specced body.
A big plus for me is the fact that the 70-200 plus extender retains it's weather proofing on a 1D body whereas the 100-400 is not weather proof. I've missed some great shots in the past when I've felt obliged to pack my camera away when it's started to pee down so this is definitely a huge selling point.
Another benefit is ease of swapping focal lengths. In the past I have missed shots because I couldn't get the 100-400 out of my rucksack quickly enough. With the combo I can keep the extender in my pocket and carry out the swap a lot quicker. It's also quite a chunk of glass that I don't need to carry around.
Now to the cost. The 70-200 combo comes in at almost twice the price of a 100-400 but as I need the f/2.8 in the 70-200 range for the shots I take it actually comes down to the cost of a 2 x extender versus a 100-400.
Finally if you look at the images below you'll see that the quality of the combo is marginally less. If cost was no object I would certainly think about keeping the 100-400 but if cost was no object I'd be looking at 400 and longer primes to retain the weather sealing.
In summary I would say that if you already have a 70-200 look at using a 2 x extender as the slight loss in quality is outweighed by the benefits. With the MK III converter now out that may even take the quality up to or beyond that of the 100-400.
The images below were taken at ISO 200, f/8 AV mode on the 1D MK IV. I used the centre AF point on the head. the camera was in one shot AF mode, single shot.
70 -200 plus 2 x converter by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
100 - 400 by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
70 -200 100% crop by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
100 - 400 100% crop by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
70 - 200 100% crop 2 by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
100 - 400 100% crop 2 by Mike Jackson1, on Flickr
I hope this review is helpful to those in the same dilemma as I was.
