Working at 400mm, 200mm with conv or 400mm lens?

T

tezza73uk

Messages
20
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
Working at the 400mm end of the range, would a 70-200mm f/2.8 using a 2x convertor compete with a 100-400mm f4.5-5.6?

A mate of mine uses Canon and is considering the later although he has the former. :wacky:

Specifically looking at the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM.

- http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

- http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Thanks in advance,
Terry :)
 
I had the 100-400 and swapped if for the former combo because I needed the 2.8 for work things...there is a small drop in image sharpness, but nothing that isn't fixable in post!
 
Having had both, I would take the 100-400mm over the 70-200mm with 2x any day.

I found the 70-200 with convertor to have too greater reduction in quality to be considered usable. Couple that with the distinct drop in AF speed and it becomes a much less exciting prospect.
 
The 100-400mm is a class lens and as a package, it's a great choice for all sorts. Plus, you have a better zoom range over a 70-200m fitted with a 2x TC
 
I tossed and turned at that very question before opting for the 70-200 2.8 IS
It was a close run thing but for me, the push-pull was a bit of a negative
I felt that I would have more flexibility with the 70 -200 almost 2 lenses in 1
the f 2.8 for the shorter lengths and ending up with the same f/5.6 only at the longer end

The 70-200 is soft at the long end ( 350-400) with the 2x TC
(but mostly recoverable)
The 100-400 is very popular though
 
Thank guys. Concensus seems that the 100-400 is better but not essential. I'll pass on the advice ;)
 
Have been thinking about the exact same thing, I'm sure I read some where that the 70 - 200 will not autofocus with the 2x unless you have a 1D
 
moaten said:
Have been thinking about the exact same thing, I'm sure I read some where that the 70 - 200 will not autofocus with the 2x unless you have a 1D
Click to expand...

The F2.8 versions will AF fine with any body.

The F4 version will not AF on anything but a 1 series
 
moaten said:
Have been thinking about the exact same thing, I'm sure I read some where that the 70 - 200 will not autofocus with the 2x unless you have a 1D
Click to expand...

RichardtheSane said:
The F2.8 versions will AF fine with any body.

The F4 version will not AF on anything but a 1 series
Click to expand...

Yep I concur
I used the 70-200 f2.8 + 2xTC with both the
400D & the current 40D
IMO it actually focuses faster with the 40D or is that just my imagination :thinking:
 
I've had both a 70-200 and the 100-400 and for me the 70-200 was unacceptable at 400mm.

From tests I've done on lens quality, in order of decreasing quality:

1. 400 f/5.6
2. 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x (420mm)
3. 100-400
4. 200 f/2.8 + 2x
5. 70-200 f/2.8 +2x
 
purpleclouds said:
I had the 100-400 and swapped if for the former combo because I needed the 2.8 for work things...there is a small drop in image sharpness, but nothing that isn't fixable in post!
Click to expand...

You can't fix image softness in post. If detail isn't there, it isn't there...
 
grumpybadger said:
You can't fix image softness in post. If detail isn't there, it isn't there...
Click to expand...

If the detail is there, then it is fixable. Perhaps I got lucky with 'good copies.' I tested it side by side with the 100-400, and after PPing the images were exactly the same!

I've never been able to test it against a 400 5.6, or any of the 300 combos, but I've got A3 prints that have been printed from images that were 10-15% cropped, and the detail is faultless!

Testing is one thing, living with and using is another.....
 
purpleclouds said:
Testing is one thing, living with and using is another.....
Click to expand...

Agreed. Maybe I used the wrong word in "test" above.

All those combinations have been used by me, in the field for wildlife and I found my 70-200 +2x unacceptable, which is why I bought the 400/5.6 prime. I've just checked my Lightroom catalogue and I have no images I've judged as worthing of keeping from the 70-200 +2x.
 
grumpybadger said:
Agreed. Maybe I used the wrong word in "test" above.

All those combinations have been used by me, in the field for wildlife and I found my 70-200 +2x unacceptable, which is why I bought the 400/5.6 prime. I've just checked my Lightroom catalogue and I have no images I've judged as worthing of keeping from the 70-200 +2x.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough then!

But like I say, in my experience, I've had great results from it! Sure...there has been the times where focus has missed and I've missed a shot, but is that something I can justify spending hundreds/thousands on, which I quite frankly don't have? No! I know what I can expect from it, and how to work it to my advantage, as I've been using it for over a couple of years now...so perhaps that is where we differ.

I've certainly no quarrels that a 400 5.6 will be superior, but I can't afford to have 2 lenses to do one job at the moment.

JU7F1461.jpg


JU7F8553.jpg


JU7F6568.jpg


One with tracking too....it kept locked on :)

JU7F5647.jpg


These are all cropped by between 10 and 25%...unacceptable?

So to the OP - got the budget? Buy a 400 5.6 and a 70-200 2.8 :LOL:

Edit - The kingfisher one is one I've got at A3...cropped by about 16%
 
grumpybadger said:
I've had both a 70-200 and the 100-400 and for me the 70-200 was unacceptable at 400mm.

From tests I've done on lens quality, in order of decreasing quality:

1. 400 f/5.6
2. 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x (420mm)
3. 100-400
4. 200 f/2.8 + 2x
5. 70-200 f/2.8 +2x
Click to expand...

That's been my experience of using those lenses/combinations, with of the exception of the 300 f/2.8 which I haven't used. I can live with a 1.4x converter as the loss of image quality seems neglible, whereas the 2x suffered too great a drop for me.
 
Look good at web res but can't tell. I just know that mine didn't cut the mustard. It wasn't out of focus, it was just soft when printed big. Each to their own. I used to have a 70-200 and now have a 100-400 (which I never thought I would do) and am really impressed with it.

I was very happy with the 70-200 and 1.4x but sometimes that lacked reach.

The problem with the 400/5.6 and 70-200 is that I didn't have bag space to carry both. Which is why they have both gone and been replaced with 100-400 and 200/2.8 prime. Each to their own but I've found a solution that works for me...
 
grumpybadger said:
Look good at web res but can't tell. I just know that mine didn't cut the mustard. It wasn't out of focus, it was just soft when printed big. Each to their own. I used to have a 70-200 and now have a 100-400 (which I never thought I would do) and am really impressed with it.

I was very happy with the 70-200 and 1.4x but sometimes that lacked reach.

The problem with the 400/5.6 and 70-200 is that I didn't have bag space to carry both. Which is why they have both gone and been replaced with 100-400 and 200/2.8 prime. Each to their own but I've found a solution that works for me...
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't got the RAWs with me to show you a 100% but I can assure you they're fine :LOL:

I think your 500 f4 is a good compromise ;)
 
NorthernNikon said:
Or the one I use:

200mm f:2 with 2x telecon to give you a 400mm f:4
cool.gif
Click to expand...

Show off! :p Tbh I would still be dobious of that setup as well though as I really would want to stay away from a 2X convertor. I used to have one, but swapped it for a 1.4X as I just wasn't happy with the results.
 
Messiah Khan said:
Show off! :p Tbh I would still be dobious of that setup as well though as I really would want to stay away from a 2X convertor. I used to have one, but swapped it for a 1.4X as I just wasn't happy with the results.
Click to expand...

With what lenses?
 
Don't dismiss the 400 f5.6. It really is a tremendous lens and the only way your going to get a longer reach and retain AF is by paying a lot more money. A 70 - 200 with a 2X converter, even a Canon one will give you a 400 reach with AF but the IQ will definitely be compromised.

Just checked back and realize that I have simply reiterated what Mr Grumpybadger said. So you pays your maney and you takes your choice.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Or the one I use:

200mm f:2 with 2x telecon to give you a 400mm f:4
cool.gif
Click to expand...


Can I ask what's the results like, and could you please post some pictures?

Thanks :)
 
Hi,

this is a handy page for lens to lens comparisons HERE this link is already loaded with the 70-200 F2.8 + 2x TC against the 100-400 IS, the IS version of the 70-200 comes out just as bad.

In all my time on photo forums I have NEVER seen anyone recommend a 70-200 plus 2x TC over the 100-400 ........ until now ;)

I think the 100-400 will walk all over the 70-200 and TC combo and the chart listed in that link above certainly confirms so, remember the secret to wildlife shooting is reach and there is no point in having the 70-200 and having to keep using it with the TC to gain this reach, the 100-400 is a great lens at pretty much all ranges, ok it can supposedly get a bit soft at 400mm but is minimal, I have owned 4 of them over the last 3 years and ALL were nice and sharp, I think it is a badly maligned lens and would have no hesitation recommending one over the 70-200 TC combo, I currently own a 70-200 F2.8 non IS and even with a 1.4x TC fitted to it the 100-400 would walk all over it for image quality as far as I am concerned, I could only recommend a 70-200 F2.8 if it is REALLY needed for low light ( which will be nullified with the TC anyway ), I use my 400m for wildlife and my 70-200 for general use, ie: the kids etc. The 1.4x TC's that I owned, I sold them too ;)

Mike.
 
I have both the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-400L. The 70-200 is a cracking lens used as what it's intended for- a fast medium tele. As soon as you start to add converters, the 100-400 is clearly sharper.
 
Messiah Khan said:
Show off! :p Tbh I would still be dobious of that setup as well though as I really would want to stay away from a 2X convertor. I used to have one, but swapped it for a 1.4X as I just wasn't happy with the results.
Click to expand...

This is my way around it too - the 200/2 is cheaper than the 300/2.8 and can be turned into a 280/2.8 with the 1.4TC with no noticeable loss of sharpness. I also use it as a 400/4 with the 2TC which gives great results. Will try and dig up a sample.

Basically if you don't plan to go longer than 400 or need zoom the 200/2 is a winner. And you get to use it as a 200/2...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top