ef 70-200 f/2.8 IS w/2x converter vs. ef 100-400 f/4.5/5.6

[disneyry]

Has anyone done a comparison between the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 2x

converter and the 100-400 being shot at 400mm? Does anyone have any

first-hand experience with these combinations? Thanks in advance.

[dcheung]

Short answer: Yes

[michael_schrag2]

Try photozone http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html. If I recall correctly the review for this lens also has results with a TC added.

[shambrick007]

<a href = "http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+2.8+IS+2x+vs+100-400+4.5+5.6&num=50&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=70+200+&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=photo.net&as_rights=&safe=images">mmmm maybe...</a>

[jojo_ma]

Wide open, it's not even close http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/image/53297349/original

[cnhoff]

The article you are looking for:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

[ky2]

Ryan, regardless of performance issues (the 100-400 is better), would you really want to invest more and carry much more? sometimes you don't need the best perceivable performance (we'd all be carrying primes then). I'm not a TC-guy, but some-times it's a sensible solution.

[marknagel]

Ryan I have both. I bought the 70-200IS first and then the 100-400L. Hands down I would choose the 70-200is over the 100-400. BUT, if you are only interested in the long end, the 100-400 is sharper at 280mm (70-200+1.4tc) and way sharper at 400mm (70-200+2xtc). Either way you con't go wrong. Both are great lenses and if you are comparing them to a hyper zoom or cheaper lens, eithier combo would be better.

 

I just got back from Puerto Vallarta where last year I took some shots of my wife swimming with the dolphins with a Tamron 28-300 XRDI, and this year took shots of a friend doing the same from the exact same location (20-40 yards away) with the 100-400L, what a differnce. Its the difference between making out the faces at that distance and making out the eye colors.

 

Mark