Canon 100-400/4-5.6 vs. 70-200/2.8 with a 2x II extender

[sheryl_bury_michals]

I'd like some advice.

 

A few weeks ago, I shot at a rugby tournament in Aspen. I've been using the Canon 100-400/4-5.6 lens for the past 8

years shooting rugby in general, so I always take this lens on trips. I've taken many photos, both film and (currently)

digital with this, with pretty decent results, if the sun isn't too glaring.

 

While I was shooting at the tournament, there was someone there shooting with a 70-200/2.8 with a 2x II TC

extender attached. Now, he tells me it brings his aperture down to 5.6, so it is any better shooting with this than my

100-400? I do have the 70-200/2.8 as well, but in rugby matches the speed is great, but the distance is lacking. I

also use a Canon 40D with the lenses. I think the person was either using a 40D or a 5D, can't remember.

 

sounds to me they both are even. What's your opinion on this? And what if you use a 300/2.8 with the 2x II TC.

Wouldn't the action get slowed down a bit there too - that's my concern - I don't want to miss shots as a result. I was

thinking about getting this as a possibility, because of the speed, but the shorter distance may be a problem.

 

I like the 100-400 for the distance I can get (and it's not as weighty and easy to travel with as opposed to the bigger

prime lenses like the 400 and 300).

 

thanks for your help.

 

Sheryl

[Former P.N Member]

The only published test that I've seen doing that comparison indicated the 70-200 with extender was a bit softer

than the 100-400.

<p>

<a

href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml">http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml</A>

<P>

Dick

[mendel_leisk]

Here's your combo:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

 

Comparing with the 70-200 f4.0 IS, it looks to be a closer race:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=6&API=0

 

But I think you lose auto-focus, not sure.

[zafar1]

You don't loose autofocus by putting 2x on a f/2.8 lens because this decreases effective apreture down to f/5.6 which is still focusable.

 

Most people will say (rightly so) that 70-200/2.8 with 2x is softer than 100-400.

[William Michael]

Hello Sheryl, :)

 

The USA rugby guys I remember the pictures. . . I am sure we have talked before . . .

 

There are many threads (on the Canon EOS Forum) discussing the quality of the 70 to 200F2.8 + 2.0MkII vs. 100 to

400.

 

OK, but I think your question is more complex than just lab IQ and test results.

 

I know my uses are not exactly the same, but I do shoot a lot of swimming, and a bit of field hockey: and for my

personal Canon gear I choose to buy the 70 to 200 F2.8 and BOTH extenders and not the 100 to 400.

 

For me, used outdoors at F8, the 70 to 200 + x2.0MkII is quite OK for a 5x7 print, and is certainly fine for a web

images. (F8 = one stop down from full open aperture. i.e. F4 + 2 stops for the extender). . . wide open it is

``acceptable``.

 

Correct Image Sharpening is relevant.

 

And the combination 70 to 200 + x2.0MkII keeps AF, but at CENTRE POINT only, note that. (the note is hidden in

the asterisk notes, at the bottom of the Canon lens data)

 

***

 

I chose this route because:

 

1. I do not like a varying maximum aperture zoom.

 

2. the 70 to 200F2.8 + x1.4MkII gives me a constant maximum aperture actual 98mm to 280mm F4 (and that

translates to about an equivalent 150 to 450 FoV with an APS-C) and that is just right for the long at Swimming Pool

& main lens at Field Hocky, IMO.

 

I still run the sideline a bit and I use two cameras, so the second usually has a short tele prime, or a standard

zoom.

 

And even though the lab tests will show some IQ loss, the 70 to 200 with the x1.4MkII, it is still bloody sharp, to my

eye.

 

3. On the odd occasion when I need longer I have a lightweight solution the x2.0MkII

 

4. it is easier for me to carry this kit, as I work with two cameras, I do not want to carry the 100 to 400 and I figure I

would need some 50 to 100 range anyway.

 

5. the 300 F4IS fits really well that kit, It is light. It is not expensive and takes the x1.4 and only costs the lens one

stop to F5.6, which is OK outside, daytime. (and inside with TV B/C quality lighting) and that combo keeps AF.

 

6. It was my personal money I was spending, as opposed to a business purchase.

 

***

 

So, IMO as you have the 70 to 200 and the 100 to 400 already, I think Santa should bring you the x1.4MkII. Play

with it on your 70 to 200 on your 40D. It is not an expensive toy if you like the idea, then consider getting the

x2.0MkII.

 

In my opinion you will use the x2.0MkII, LESS often than the x1.4MkII on the 70 to 200. I think you will be inclined to

crop tighter in post production than use the more powerful extender, if you occasionally need the extra range.

 

 

If you want a Prime, then perhaps set your sights on the 300F4IS: it will not break the bank, or your back, and you

can go Hand Held quite easily.

 

OK, for full discloser: I have an easy access to borrow a 400F2.8, (and a 300F2.8), but frankly it is not worth the

hassle most of the time, for my outputs, which are: web images; newspaper print; and a quick turn around set of

selected 5 x 7 prints. But they are expensive lenses to buy for fun, (i.e. not to make money with) just my opinion . . .

 

My work is pro bono, this does not imply any degradation in my quality, effort, attitude or professionalism: but, the

300F2.8 and especially the 400F2.8 are big (and heavy) and over an 8 hour day (well about two hours for you at a

rugby game), it is a lot of lens to be lugging and to be responsible for, with no big cash return to balance the potential

personal cost, if it goes pair shaped – if I recall correctly, these Rugby shots are also a labour of love for you?

 

Cheers,

 

Bill

[wilsontsoi]

Sheryl, was there anything wrong with your existing preference of using the 100-400 variable aperture telephoto zoom that gives you good reach for rugby, enough light gathering ability for daytime games, and compact/lightweight enough for ease of travel? IMHO, it sounds to me like you have chosen the right tool for the job (daytime field sports, particularly rugby) already for the past 8 years.

[catchlight]

My experience is consistent with what William and Wilson have said.

<p>

<li>The Canon 1.4X performs noticably better than the 2X, especially on zooms;

<li>Avoid third-party TCs;

<li>Avoid using a TC at all unless there is no other way to get the shot, or you don't plan to enlarge or sell the images;

<li>Your 100-400 is an excellent choice for rugby, soccer, and field hockey.<p>

I find that positioning myself well on the field, anticipating the flow of play, and timing the peak action improves my shots more than a longer lens ever would. <p>The more I concentrate on those things, the "luckier" I get in having great shots come into my viewfinder.<p>

You probably know all this but, just in case, using the highest frame rate, AI Servo, centre focus point only, with the AF moved to the * button via Custom Function 4 makes the camera respond more quickly.

[sheryl_bury_michals]

you all are great. I do have a 1.4 TC, but it's an older one, and not sure it'll fit on my 40D (on my film cameras it's

fine), so getting an improved version is no biggie.

 

The comments are helpful. So much so that I won't be getting the 2x II TC. Part of the reason I asked the question is

that I do not claim to know everything, and when I see someone do something different shooting-wise, I wonder if I

missed out on some info I should know.

 

Your answers told me otherwise, that what I use to shoot is fine. Still, I can't help get a wee bit of "Lens envy" when I

see the guys with the big bazooka-sized lenses. But I d remind myself I have to travel, so it's got to not weigh a ton.

 

Brent - your advice on the TC was helpful, as I do enlargements for print purposes - I shoot for the US National Rugby

team on occasion, and sometimes the communication office uses the shots for print, so bigger is better.

 

William W. - yep, I'm the same person - lots more shooting these days. Yes. many of the shots are for the team

website (which helps a lot in the player recruitment process), but I've been shooting for the National side on and off

for a year and a half now, so that's been a lot of fun - and more work appears in their PR stuff!

 

Again thanks for the enlightening advice!!

 

sheryl :)

[William Michael]

> I do have a 1.4 TC, but it's an older one, and not sure it'll fit on my 40D (on my film cameras it's fine), <

 

I am not entirely sure, I THINK the x1.4 (original) just does not allow centre point AF with an F4 lens . . . and it cannot be stacked with a x2.0.

 

It should fit and work fine on your 40D however, with the 70 to 200F2.8, so you should just try it and see.

 

I know there are some little differences like that, between it and the MkII version

 

***

 

I am interested if others could confirm my vague suspicions.,

 

Cheers,

 

Bill

[William Michael]

I could be incorrect about the AF functionality, but it appears I got the ability to stack / not stack correct.

 

The AF ``ability`` does not affect you anyway, as you have the 70 to 200F2.8.

 

FYI:

 

http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/001ySJ

 

WW