Prime lens vs. zoom lens with extender

[victor_ng2]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I have 3 questions would like to ask for your advice:</p>

<p>1) Canon EF 400mm f5.6L USM lens vs. Canon EF70-200mm f2.8L USM lens with 1.4 extender EF 1.4X III. Which one produces better, higher quality pictures? I hear some people say it’s the same. Some say whenever you use an extender, quality will be lost. I know these two lens are made for different purposes, but I’m here asking just only for the quality of the picture.<br>

<br />2) Canon EF70-200mm f2.8L USM lens with 1.4 extender EF 1.4X III vs. the same lens with 2.0 extender EF 2x III. Is there any loss in quality if I use 2.0 extender vs. 1.4x extender?</p>

<p>3) I look closely between Canon’s current extenders vs. most previous extenders, EF 1.4x III vs. EF 1.4x II, for example, general they’re the same except the current model has a new fluorine coating & a UD glass (I believe). Can the current extender produce better, higher quality pictures? Its’ price is a lot<br />higher than the older model.</p>

<p>Again, for these 3 questions, I’d like to know only about the quality of the pictures if I use these equipments. Please let me know. Thanks a lot!<br>

<br /><br /><br>

V</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>The 400 prime will out perform any 70-200 and TC combination. Whether it does it enough to matter to any one individuals photography is moot.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=3">400 vs 70-200 & 1.4 TC MkIII.</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=3">400 vs 70-200 & 2 TC MkIII.</a></p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>#1) See above.<br>

#2) Yes.<br>

#3) Yes, using the new extenders, all other factors being the same, you can produce imagery w/ higher IQ. I guess a better way to put it is that the 'new' ones do less damage to your IQ, though how much of an effect that will have on your final product is up to your standards, and the specifics of the shot & lens & camera.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I used the 70-200 f2.8 with the 2x extender and it was terrible. Even using the 1.4x on that lens made an obvious difference to the image quality. The 400mm f5.6 is a cracking lens but it badly needs IS.</p>

<p>You want my opinion? You're obviously wanting to shoot at focal lengths of up to 400mm. Get the EF 300mm f4.0L IS and the 1.4x extender. It's a superb combination and will give you 300mm f4 and 420mm f5.6. Not only that, it has IS (something the 400mm f5.6 lacks). The image quality is outstanding, the lens is lighter than the 70-200 f2.8, smaller than the 400mm f5.6 and is no more expensive.</p>

<p>The only other sensible option would be the 100-400L.</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>1 - I cannot comment on the 400 but I can compare the 300 F4 IS against the 70-200 F2.8 L (non IS) and 1.4x II as I have owned both for a few years. The image quality of the 300 is better than the 200 + 1.4x but either can give good images. In real world use (I use mine on a 5DII, 7D and 1DIIN) the bigger issue is that the AF speed of the zoom and TC combination is significantly slower than the prime. thus shots like high speed sports or birds in flight are much better with the prime. The prime is also sharper - especially at the edges but in most shots the softer edges do not really matter as they are usually background and generally OOF.<br>

2 - I cannot compare the MkIII TCs as mine are both MkII but I rarely use the 2x as it is significantly worse than the 1.4x in terms of IQ and AF speed. Indeed the Canon 2x has always been a lot weaker than the 1.4x for as long as I have shot Canon - my FD 1.4x is a lot better than either of the two FD 2x TCs.<br>

3 - I believe that Canon's main claim for the MkIII TCs is not IQ improvement but a significant improvement in AF speed. However I believe that this only happens if you are using the big MkII lenses (e.g. 300 F2.8 L IS II) which you are not considering.<br>

If you plan to use 300 and 400mm a lot get the 300 F4 L IS and 1.4x. If you really need 70-200 and occasional 300 or 400mm then get the 70-200 F2.8 L and a TC. If you need all of the above then the only option is the 100-400. I am personally not a big fan of this lens but others like it. From memory Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape did a lot of comparative testing of the lenses you are considering.</p>

 

[robertbody]

<p>Generally speaking a Prime is better than another prime + teleconverter, and 1.4x will be better than 2.0x quality wise too.<br /> So 400mm vs 70-200mm + 1.4x should give the edge to 400mm (since primes generally perform better than zooms). Since 2.0x is generally noticeable, and 1.4x is not that big of a difference, not using a teleconverter at all and cropping can sometimes give a better result, especially if the focusing slows down and you miss a shot -- it just depends. <br /> <br /> If you shoot into the sun there is also a concern of flaring, extra flaring due to using a zoom.<br /> In this set of pictures I was getting flaring from 70-200mm + 1.4x, and even without the 1.4x, it wasn't too bad this time but it can be.<br /> <img src="http://www.robertbody.com/people12/images/2012-01-07-papago-bikes-sunset-136732.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>In the following picture from 300mm f/2.8 the flare was marginal (no TC used) and I am quite sure it would have been quite worse with a zoom. The above is a January 7 picture and below is a late May shot, so the sun should be stronger below.<br /> <img src="http://www.robertbody.com/california11/images/2011-05-31-dv-dantes-silhoues-74536.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Just 1 or 2 very minor sun flare spots that I removed.... and I know what bad flare looks like, I have seen it with zooms.</p>

<p>400mm f/5.6 is not the best lens all the time, if you get into low light then not having IS stabilization might matter. Also bringing both a 70-200mm and a 400mm will be heavy, in addition to other gear. But when you need the 400mm focal length then you want to go with a prime of some kind.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Uh, a prime will outperform a zoom alone 99.9% of the time. A zoom with an extender will have no chance at outperforming the 400mm f/5.6L. The 1.4x will always outperform the 2x in sharpness, but if you're cropping the 1.4 to the FOV for the 2x, then the 2x will likely produce a better result. The difference between the ver II and ver. III is up to you whether or not it's worth the price difference. I use the 1.4x II on a 400mm f/5.6L quite a bit and am in no way lusting for the ver. III. Also, with the quality sacrafice of the extender, it will produce better results if used on a prime, however, that doesn't mean you can't get good images by placing it on a zoom, just go for the prime first if it's possible.</p>

[ljwest]

<p>Many good answers here! Allow me to put in another plug for the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L. If you need the 201-400 range a lot, this might be a good compromise between the choices you list. It won't beat out the 400/5.6L for PQ, but will likely be better than the 70-200/2.8L with the 2X converter. It is about the same size and weight as the 70-200/2.8 (without the converter), goes to 400mm natively, and has IS. You do lose the 70-99mm range, but a) you need to dismount the converter with the 70-200 and b) you probably have another lens in your bag to cover it.</p>