400 5.6 vs 70-200 2.8 + TC

[clyde]

I have a 70-200 2.8 (non i.s.) which I'm finding a little short for my

favourite subject which is vintage aircraft. it's fine when they are

on the ground but not when airborne. What kind of results would I get

using a 2+ TC compared to a 400 5.6. I'm using a 50e. Thanks for any

input.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/tc2/index.html">2X TCs</a> are <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml">notoriously known for the optical degradation they cause</a>. On the opposite side, the <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">400/5.6</a> is one of Canon finest lenses. </p>

 

<p> BTW, if you plan to shoot at low light and/or without a tripod, 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC may be a better combo. BTW, I have 200/2.8, 300/4 IS and 1.4X TC. The 400/5.6 is not stable on my monopod (I don't use tripod) and I didn't want to put a 2X on my 200/2.8. The 100-400 IS was rejected due to its <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#zoomtypes">push-pull design</a> (I hate it, it's always too tight or too loose) and somewhat mediocre results at the tele end.</p>

<p> As always, YGWYPF.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[giles_lean]

<p>

Michael Reichmann has done some comparisons you might find interesting:

</p>

 

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/DXO-Tests/dxo-canon-400mm.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/DXO-Tests/dxo-canon-400mm.shtml</a>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

"Recently I started testing some of my existing cameras and lenses with DxO Analyzer. Based on e-mails that I receive and the numerous questions that I see on various equipment Forums around the Net, one of the most common questions concerns what is the best moderately priced 400mm solution for Canon lens owners? This test is intended to partially answer that question, at least with regard to measurable optical performance."

</blockquote>

 

<p>

That article links to others on his site, including a comparison between the 100-400mm zoom and the 70-200mm+2x extender.

</p>

 

<p>

Not directly on point, but you might also be interested in Arthur Morris' FAQ answer re 300/4+1.4x v. 400/5.6:

</p>

 

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html">http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html</a>

</blockquote>

[johnb]

Colin <br>

check here <A href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009S7e" title="Click to see 70-200 with 2x" target="_blank">70-200/f2.8L Image quality with/vs without 2xll extender</A> <br>

Similar to Giles, here is another link at Luminous-Landscape<A href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml" title="Click to see 400 vs.400" target="_blank">400 vs 400</a> <br>

I suggest the 400 f/5.6

[craig_bridge]

I'll take exception to 2x TC being universal quality killers. On the prime lenses they are matched to they do quite well. On zooms, good 1.4x TC's do alright but 2x TC's seldom perform well.

[mark_chappell]

Just to stir this pot a bit more:

 

Yakim says that the 400/5.6 is one of Canon's finest lenses. Perhaps, but a search

through the archives will reveal considerable controversy about it -- some love it, some

hate it.

 

Also, the well-known Reichmann study of the 100-400 versus the 70-200 plus 2X is now

a bit dated. The 2X has been upgraded optically (version II), and at least one post claims

that the 70-200 plus the 2X II is as good or better than the 100-400.

 

I've got the 100-400 and although my sample is not at its best at the 400 mm end, it's

quite good when stopped down to f8 or so. I can't compare it to the 400/5.6, not having

one of the latter, but I'd tend to accept the argument that a prime is likely to be better

than a zoom at the same focal length. Nevertheless, lack of IS in the 400/5.6 is a BIG

detriment to the utility of the lens, IMO.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Disclaimer: I don't have any of these lenses.</p>

 

<p>If 400mm is the right focal length for this job, then this is not much of a contest. The 400/5.6 will beat the 70-200+2x.</p>

 

<p>There are disagreements, as others have pointed out, about how either of the 70-200/2.8 lenses with either of the 2x TCs compare to the 100-400. All lenses show some sample variation, and it's been speculated that the 100-400's mixed reputation (particularly regarding its performance at the long end) may in large part be due to this. Also, with four possible combinations of the 70-200/2.8 (IS and non-IS) and 2x (original and II), it's entirely possible that some combinations of a 70-200 + 2x will beat some samples of the 100-400 and that some combinations will not beat other samples of the 100-400. FWIW, <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200109/report.html#t8">Canon's own MTF graphs comparing the two 2x TCs (on the 300/2.8L IS USM)</a> show that the new one is slightly worse in the center, slightly better towards the edges, but not dramatically different one way or the other (though of course this may vary depending on what lens you use with it). The 2x II should be more flare resistant, but <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tcs.html">complaints about flare on the original version are not common</a>, and anyway, the original 70-200 plus either 2x has about three and a half times as many elements (25 total, vs. 7) as the 400/5.6, and it would be very surprising were the 400/5.6 to be more flare-prone.</p>

 

<p>The 400/5.6 is a somewhat uncommon lens. Most people who would buy a 400mm lens are either looking for a zoom (in which case they'd buy the 100-400) or a fast prime (in which case they'd buy the 400/2.8), so there don't seem to be all that many people who have the 400/5.6. Still, most people who say they've used it say it's a fine lens. And, on principle, it ought to be better than the 100-400 zoom. FWIW, <a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4isor4f56.html">Art Morris</a> and <A href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">Michael Reichmann</a> both think the 400/5.6 is sharper than the 100-400. You should never take a review (on the Web, in a magazine, or anywhere else) as gospel; read their reviews and decide for yourself how much faith to put in them.</p>

 

<p>The 70-200+2x does have a few things in its favour. Assuming you're planning on adding either a 2x or the 400 (as opposed to trading in the 70-200 on a 400), adding the 2x will be cheaper, smaller, and lighter. It also gives you overlapping 70-200 and 140-400 ranges, rather than 70-200 and 400 and a big gap between them.</p>

[digitmstr]

There's always the 300mm f/4L IS (+ 1.4 TC). That will give you excellent image quality AND 'IS'.

[alex_p._schorsch]

Do what I did. Buy a 400mm f/5.6 and kick ass. Especially if you are using a digital camera with a 1.6 multiplying factor, you'll find that it is a lens which opens up unlimited creative possibilities without having to hire a packhorse to carry your gear. Presently, I couldn't live without one. Cheers, Alex.

[mike_broderick]

Disclaimer--I don't have either of the two lenses.

 

But if you are doing flight shots of vintage aircraft, I'd keep in mind that Canon makes the autofocus slow down some when a 1.4x teleconverter is installed, and considerably when a 2x teleconverter is installed. Also keep in mind that nature photographers consider the 400/5.6 one of the fastest-focusing and best (bird) flight lenses around.

 

If you were shooting the Thunderbirds or high-performance aircraft, your distances would be long enough that I suspect this wouldn't be so important--you'd always be at infinity focus. But my expectation is that if you are shooting vintage aircraft (old warbirds and biplanes, i assume) you will often be shooting low-altitude flyovers where the distance changes rapidly and is close enough to be closer than infinity focus.

 

I predict you'll be happier with the 400/5.6. Admittedly I don't own the lens, though, so I could be wrong. Is there any chance of borrowing or renting a 2x teleconverter or a 400/5.6 and trying them out? That might make your decision easier, and would certainly make it more accurate.

[mike_broderick]

As an add-on, you might consider the 100-400L lens as a possible replacement or (more likely) supplement to your 70-200/2.8. The zoom is very useful, and the lens is reasonably sharp. I took the attached photo with my D60 at f/6.7, and at 100% view, you can (barely) make out some of the letters in the product name on the pilots helmet inside the canopy!<div></div>

[lee_shively]

I have both lenses mentioned and the Canon 2x II extender.

 

The 400/5.6 I have is superb.

 

The 70-200/2.8 is superb. With the 1.4x extender it is very good. With the 2x extender it's still good.

 

Comparing the two, the 400/5.6 is sharper beyond any doubt.

 

But for the sake of convenience and the fact that the results are still good enough for any purpose I have, I usually leave the 400mm at home and take the 70-200 with extenders.

[andrevallejo]

This may answer your question...

http://www.andrevallejo.net/dicas/teste_lentes.htm