Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Vs Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM + Canon 2x EF Extender III (Teleconverter)

[nico_morris]

<p>I think the quality league table is:<br>

1) 400 prime<br>

2) 100-400 ideal copy, very slightly ahead of:<br>

3) 70-200 + 2x ideal copy<br>

I am sure there's enough sample variation for some TC combinations to do better than some 100-400<br>

The lenses that don't change length should be easier to shoot with consistently. The rule-of-thumb to shoot with the shutter fraction of at least the effective focal length tends to break down when you have your hand on the end of such long and heavy lenses. The prime being lighter is a bit easier to shoot with but then it doesn't have stabilisation.<br>

Personally I got a 70-200 without stabilisation and another stabilised lens for 400. I did not like 70-200 + 2x away from the centre with two TC I tried. The good news is that at least the 2 EF III has a good resale value.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Nico, why would you say that a prime is easier to shoot consistently compared to a zoom? As long as the zoom's f-stop is consistent and they both have IS, IME, there's no difference.</p>

<p>I think that all these people unsatisfied with the 70-200mm plus 2.0x TC-III are looking at user error. This is a very fine combination. AF will be more difficult than with a bare lens, but I find it pretty darn fast with my lenses and TCs. The problems grow as you get out past 400mm, but all of you are reporting problems at 400mm. More likely than the lens being at fault, your SS is too low, or you're not using single-point AF and getting the point on the eye or something else.</p>

[robert_turner5]

<p>IQ of my 400 f/5.6L was stellar. When using a mono or tripod.<br>

For the life of me I could not get suitable results handheld. ABSOLUTELY a technique issue, but an issue nonetheless, and this with a FF body.<br>

Swapped for a older 100-400 and I am delighted. If IQ isn't as good, I sure can't see it, and the IS is irreplaceable for me. The 100-400 is superb even with a 1.4II extender.<br>

Handheld 400 f/5.6? Maybe for a mime or a palace guard, but not for a mere mortal like me... </p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>BTW, the EF 2.0x TC-III is stellar. Here are over 100-images with the TC-III on my 500/f4:]</p>

<p><a href="

 

[neill_farmer2]

<p>The OP is concerned about the IQ from a 70-200 + 2x converter. I think I would first try to remove technique from the photo. Using a tripod in good light the first thing would be to AFMA the combination (or use live view). Then photograph some suitable still life at the appropriate distance using shutter delay and stopping down the lens. This test is to establish how sharp the combination can be. I find that technique is very important at long focal lengths, and as has been said, shutter speed is your friend. IS is also your friend. I think I would borrow a 100-400L before I purchased one, The lens costs good money and may offer only marginal improvements.<br>

I own a 70-200mm 2.8 and a 2x converter, but I've never considered using that in preference to my 100-400L, the IQ of which I'm very satisfied with, and I also use the zoom a lot.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>If you had the lenses to compare, you could do your own test, but why not simply look at professional testing already done like:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0</a></p>

<p>This was referenced earlier in the thread.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Looking at the digital picture crops I'd say the 100-400mm is marginally better at f5.6 at 400mm than the zoom + TC particularly in the center which is usually where the action is for wildlife. Edges are very close with a slight margin going to the zoom + TC. But one person's test is not the last word. They are pretty close...</p>