Canon 70-200Is vs 100-400mm

[tommy_akm]

Hi Is the 70-200is with 2x tele extender better than the 100-400. For

the eos 3

[brian_potts]

No, the 2x is a compromise. I own both of these lenses. If the 70-200 was that great with a 2x, I wouldn't.

 

 

For reference, here is an article on it...

 

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

[b.j._porter]

I have the 70-200 and the 2X teleconverter. You definitely lose some sharpness at the extreme end with the 2X teleconverter on. It is not as noticeable at the mid ranges.

[yakim_peled1]

If you're going to use the 300-400mm range often, the 100-400 is - optically - your best bet. However, keep in mind that it has push-pull design (which many dislike) and "only" 2 stops of IS advantage.

 

It's a FAQ. Search.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[eric_scott1]

I've used both lenses, and I would go with the 70-200 and a 1.4x converter if you're not going to use the extreme telephoto often, and otherwise opt for the 100-400. They're both beautiful lenses, but heavyheavy... better get to the gym in either case :-)

[mike_p2]

Brian,

Is your teleconverter Mark II?

Do you happen to have sample images to compare those two setups?

Thank you!

[simonpg]

Luminous Landcape has a good evaluation of the option. BUT, for my bit in actual use, the 70-200mm f2.8 + 2.0x extender produces very satisfying shots especially at f8 to f16. While you can detect the softening at the long end under a loupe, prints made 12"x10" are very good.

 

Then look at the 100-400mm L - it's weakest performance is from about 300 - 400mm, just where many need the best performance!

 

So in the end I use a 1.4x extender with my 70 - 200 f2.8 which is excellent at all focal lengths and at all f stops. I use a prime for long stuff - 300mm f4. It is also excellent with 1.4 and 2.0 extenders. I think it's the only way to go. If I must have longer zoom capability (eg airshows) I use the 2x extender on the 70-200mm as a good compromise.

 

By the way your EOS 3 will AF fine with amax aperture of f5.6.

[mike_p2]

Well, I've shot some images today to compare 70-200 f/2.8 IS plus 2xII extender with 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS. No more questions in terms of image quality for me. 100-400 wins hands down.

 

Ergonomics is a different story, however. The trombone action and the tightening ring of the 100-400 lens are not exactly what I like (I hate when my lenses creep out while being carried). At the same time, 100-400 is more compact at 100 mm and noticably lighter.

 

P.S. If anyone is interested, I could e-mail the images (in any of the following formats: Canon RAW, PSD or JPEG). 10D on a tripod with IS off on the 100-400 lens. Shot in RAW at ISO=400. No sharpening done when the RAW images were batch-converted into PSD and JPEG.

[mike_p2]

Correction: GIF, not PSD. PSD is too large to e-mail. :)

[david enzel]

Yesterday (before reading this thread) I bought the Canon 2x teleconverter to use with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 USM IS lens. This thread makes me wonder if I should return it. I don't own the 100-400. I did make a couple of test images yesterday on my 10D at maximum focal length (560mm on a 10D) and looked at them on my monitor. They looked OK to me. I do not need a super telephoto often but it seems like a nice option to have for the money. But I am I kidding myself about the quality? Do people get keepers with the combination of the 70-200 and the 2x extender?

 

I have always refrained from buying the 100-400 because I don't like push-pull zooms.