100-400 VS 70-200 2x

Ok, as I search through all of these posts every time someone asks if

the 100-400 IS lens is any good, 95% of the people jump in and

say ?get the 70-200 IS plus 2x extender!? That?s fine and dandy

however, if someone will mostly be using it to shoot at the full 400

then according to the shoot out test http://www.luminous-

landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml the 100-400 out performs

at F5.6 - F11 which is what you would need to shoot at in low light

situations so again why would anyone pay an extra $500 if they are

not interested in using it for the 70-200 range? What would be the

benefit? And don?t say buy a prime, any prime with that reach with IS

will cost $$$$$$ were talking under $2,000 budget.

 

I am looking for a lens that I can shoot wildlife and surfing

pictures with. And no 200mm is just not a long enough for taking

surfing pictures as some breaks are very far out.

"?so again why would anyone pay an extra $500 if they are not interested in using it for the 70-200 range?"<p>

I don't think they would. I just think that they came to the same conclusion as me - they want IS, 2.8, and OCCASIONALLY have the need to go out to 400mm (and don't want to sacrifice 2.8 to get there).

 

<p> "And don't say buy a prime, any prime with that reach with IS will cost $$$$$$ were talking under $2,000 budget." <P> 300/4.0 IS + 1.4 extender ~ $1,500.

The Luminous Landscape review you mention is now rather dated. It used the older

version of the 2X extender. If you search this site some more, you'll find claims that the

70-200 IS + 'new' 2X gives a better performance than indicated on the LL review, and may

in fact be better than the 100-400 at 400 mm.

 

I have the 100-400 and it's fine at 400, especially if you shoot at f8-11 or so. I dunno if

it's any better or worse than the 70-200 IS +2x, or the 300/4 IS + 1.4X (even if we ignore

the intersample variation in such complex lenses). I don't own a 70-200 or a 300. But

the chances are that any

differences among these three choices are likely to be small and MUCH less important to

picture quality than your own skills.

 

And if you want to include a lot of bird photography in your interests in 'wildlife', I'm going

to tell you what you don't want to hear: 400 mm is the absolute minimum for the vast

majority of bird photography and most of the time you will be wishing for twice that focal

length or more.

>> F11 which is what you would need to shoot at in low light situations<<

 

You may want to rethink that statement...

 

Within your budget, the BEST *prime* is the suggested 300 f/4L IS + 1.4 TC.

 

The 100-400 is not a bad zoom except, if you use it mostly at 400 you are paying for focal lenghts (and the zoom feature) that you don't need. So, that brings you to the 300+TC. However, even that resulting focal lenght can be short for the work you want to do. Which, brings you to the $$$$ glass...

The only reasons I didn't buy the 100-400 and instead bought the 70-200 were 1. 2.8 & IS, I want to shoot hockey and its perfect for it. 2. I did not like the push/pull zoom of the 100-400. It was awkward for someone familiar with the twist type zoom. I don't have a need for 400mm just yet and I have a cheap solution of a sigma 170-500 which works fine at 5.6-11 even all the way out at 500mm. I've been tempted to try it with a 2x but just for screwing around, not really serious attempts.

 

The 100-400 is a fine piece of glass, I have a friend that owns one. Its not real good for indoors or low-light. Outdoors, wildlife it should be dead on the right piece of glass. Now imaging that 100-400 with the 2x II TC and those breaks way out there. >grin<

I shoot mostly birds, and did a few surfing shots while vacationing in Hawaii, and used my Sigma 170-500 almost always at the 500mm end with my Digital Rebel. There were a few pro's shooting, and all were using 500mm primes. I was at least 25% closer to the water than the pro's and still never shortened up. Check it out <a href="http://www.dslrexchange.com/dslrxphotopost/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/42">here</a> for an idea of what to expect. Most of my surfing shots were cropped down a little from the 500mm.

Nice shots Kin - I never seem to get such opportunities here. All the birds are flying out of reach by the time I see them.

I did a non scientific test myself. The 70-200 w/ new canon 2x did not out perform the 100-400. Here's a link to the thread.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BAei

 

Mark

Note, I use PS auto levels on all crops. The 100-400 was almost unchanged, without PS, the 100-400 won hands down.

 

Mark

Thanks Mark, after seeing your shots the 100-400 is the winner in my book! I will be picking mine up next week when the local camera store has there no sales tax day!

Others have already pointed out the prime option in that budget range. There's the 400 too, but doesn't have IS. It has been noted as being sharper than the 100-400, which in turn is sharper than a 70-200 with a 2x. While you've looked at the 400vs400 review, you might look for the forgotten 400 one as well.

 

Mark C - Yes, it was using the old one, but he did update the review when he got a Mark II 2x. Didn't use 70-200, but he did do a comparison of the I vs II and found that the II was indeed better, but not much. I don't believe it would be better than a 100-400. Manufacturing variation aside that is.

 

Nader, I think if you want the flex of a zoom and at the 400 range, the 100-400 is your best (only, really) choice. My opinion only of course.

Nader <br>

Like Mark pointed out the 100-400L will out perform a 70-200 with 2X, plus you don't loose autofocus. <br>

Have fun with your new lens!<div></div>

<I>Like Mark pointed out the 100-400L will out perform a 70-200 with 2X, plus you don't

loose autofocus</i><P>

 

I'm guilty of gearhead measurebating here, but you won't loose AF with a 70-200/2.8 +

2X, either. f2.8 X 2 = f5.6, which works fine with all Canon AF cameras.