Cropping with the 70-200 vs. non-cropping the 100-400 "L" lenses

[dcstep]

<p>280mm will be too short for most puffin shooting.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<blockquote>

<p>Extender 1.4×, ideally Version II</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Typo, I meant Version III, although I do not know how much better that will be in practice with that lens. But as David says, 280mm may well be too short for puffins and other wildlife.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I owned both the EF 1.4x TC in both versions II and III. Optically there's almost no difference. With the very top bodies, like the 1D X, the III will communicate with lens faster, leading to quicker AF. On the 7D and the xxD bodies, you will not notice a difference.</p>

[dave404]

<p>I want a lens with some longer reach but I love my 70-200 2.8 L and will keep it. I handled the 100-400 at B&H and found the mechanics of the push pull zoom a bit stange. I did not like the f/5.6. Most of the time I would use the 70-200 and not the 100-400. I think you save up and invest in a longer focal length prime and a teleconverter. I will probably do the same if we ever get a raise. </p>

[w_t1]

<p>Just another praise for the Canon converters...I normally only use my 1.4xii converter on my 300 f4is lens, but a couple of years ago I accidentally mounted my 70-200 f4 (non-is) lens on the body with the 1.4 converter...didn't realize until after the soccer game was over what I had done. In a sense it was a blind test, I could not tell apart the pics taken with or without the 1.4 without viewing exif data.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>David said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I want a lens with some longer reach but I love my 70-200 2.8 L and will keep it. I handled the 100-400 at B&H and found the mechanics of the push pull zoom a bit stange. I did not like the f/5.6. Most of the time I would use the 70-200 and not the 100-400. I think you save up and invest in a longer focal length prime and a teleconverter. I will probably do the same if we ever get a raise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 70-200/f2.8 is a perfect candidate for the EF 2.0x TC-III. It'll still AF pretty fast at f/5.6 with any of the Canon bodies. The IQ is excellent. I think you'll find it as sharp at 400mm as is the 100-400.</p>

[don_pugh]

<p>David Stephens writes:<br>

"The AF speed with TCs varies with the body used. With the 1D X, there's very little difference, but with the 5D MkIII, there's considerable slow down with the 1.4x and too much with the 2x to deal with anything moving fast."<br>

This is simply wrong. When using a 1.4X III TC with any Canon camera body, the AF motor speed is reduced by 50%. With a 2X III TC, the AF motor speed is reduced by 75%.<br>

The autofocus speed of the 1D X is faster than that of the 5D Mark III with series II telephoto lens because it has a more powerful battery pack. But that doesn't mean "there's very little difference" in AF speed of the 1D X when you add a 1.4X III TC to a series II telephoto lens. There's a 50% reduction.<br>

That is unless Chuck Westfall of Canon doesn't know what he's talking about.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Don, I don't think you've compared the 1D X and the 5D MkIII with 1.4x and 2.0x TC-IIIs on them. If you had, you'd know that I'm simply right.</p>

<p>50% of a small number is still a small number. 75% of a small number is still a small number.</p>

<p>The difference between the 2X TC-III on the 1D X and the 5D MkIII is HUGE. It's a factor of ten in some cases. That is indeed due to the higher voltage battery, based on what I've read from Mr. Westfall. So, the AF function may only slow a little, but the time taken to lock the lens on and keep it locked on in AI Servo mode becomes unmanageable with the 5D MkIII trying to AF at f/8. Mind you, I'm talking about something moving fast, not some chart on the wall.</p>

[moesphotohobby]

<p>My two cents....<br>

<br />I have and had the 70-200, 100-400, 1.4x and 2.0x. I'll keep it simple, even though these decisions are never easy.</p>

<p>Here's my order of preference based on IQ for getting out to 400mm. This really shows for distant subjects (50m or farther). When shooting closer it becomes less of a contest:<br>

1.) 100-400<br>

2.) 70-200 + 1.4x and crop<br>

3.) 70-200 + 2.0x<br>

<br />I find that I prefer the 300mm and 1.4x now a days, which suits my type of wildlife photography. Not trying to make your decision harder, but it's never easy when trying to upgrade your gear. I would post some samples, but I don't believe that will help you. Too many factors involved in my opinion.</p>

<p>If I had lots of money then it would be a very easy decision.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>It's important to know, particularly with the 2.0x TC, if you're using the TC-III or TC-II. The IQ of the TC-III is much improved.</p>

[moesphotohobby]

<p>Yes, good point David.<br>

Both TC's are the II version.</p>

<p>And for those interested, I've compared these to the Kenko Pro 300 versions, both 1.4x and 2.0x. Found that the difference was marginal. I even had a 1.4x TC-III which I compared to my Kenko 1.4x, and the difference in IQ was very hard to see.</p>

<p>The biggest difference in all these tests was the rendering of the whites. The Kenko's threw a yellow hue on the image, it was minor and removable in photoshop. The canon's did a much nicer job with the whites. Little things that make a difference if you're a perfectionist or doing photography as a professional.</p>

<p>And I'm not a camera technician (although I am an engineer), so my tests are probably flawed at some level. Take it as food for thought.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>What was the problem with your 70-200mm plus 2.0x TC-II that put it at the bottom of your heap?</p>

<p>I love my EF 2.0x TC-III combined with both my 500/f4 and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. Here's a typical 2.0x TC-III image:</p>

<p><a title="Kestrel Poses by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2805/11919093086_fd3a0c1e4b_c.jpg" alt="Kestrel Poses " width="800" height="800" /></a></p>

[moesphotohobby]

<p>I enjoy bird photography, and that's a nice crisp image of a Kestrel (male by the looks of it).<br>

<br />In my experience I found that the combination of lenses with camera bodies can create such huge variations in IQ. So your Camera+lens+TC are probably different then my Camera+lens+TC. And yes, you need to micro adjust your combinations. But even then I wasn't really happy with my results.</p>

<p>I didn't like the 2.0x because it never brought out enough detail that I couldn't already get from cropping. And the hit on the F-stop doesn't help the matter. Don't get me wrong. I've used it with success on a couple of images, but that 2.0x just sits in my bag 95% of the time.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Moe, your experience is not inconsistent with other reviews of the EF 2.0x TC-II that I've seen. You should borrow a TC-III to try for yourself. They improved the IQ considerably, at least from what I've read.</p>

<p>BTW, I own both the EF 1.4x TC-II and the TC-III and there's hardly any difference in the IQ between those.</p>