imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Any opinions on the Canon 100-400 "pumper" vs. the new 70-200 F2.8 II with 2X ? I do know the 100-400 is dated and cheaper but have seen some really good stuff from it. Ken Rockwell calls the 70-200 II the greatest telephoto lens ever made and even with 2X probably outperforms the 100-400 ? And the 70-200 is certainly more maneuverable, But I would like some USER comments ? Thanks, .....Larry

Bob Powell Loc: Wilmington, OH

The 70-200 with the 2x teleconverter is my standard bird outfit.

I also own the 100-400 but it is heavier, the autofocus is slower, and the image stabilization is not as good. If you try to use either converter, you lose AF at max extension since you lose autofocus beyond f/8. Manual focus, even on a tripod, is very touchy and time-consuming since the focus ring is so far out on the end.

The 70-200 is a superb lens with none of the drawbacks of the 100-400. The AF and the IS so good, I often shoot hand-held. I also often add a 580 EX II flash pushed through a Better Beamer fresnel lens. The added light gives better depth of field and the flash adds sharpness by freezing the subject.

gessman Loc: Colorado

You might want to go to http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml click on Product Reviews along the left side of the page and then select "C" from the alphabet box which will take you to a review and comparison of several of the Canon products. After you look at the ones you're interested in, and even though you didn't ask about it, I suggest you read the review of the 400 5.6 lens because it is compared with both the 100-400 and the 70-200 and has some good additional information about those two latter lens. Although you didn't ask about it, the 2xIII is out and it has a special feature you might want to consider - when used with a lens like the 100-400, it allows you to keep the 100 but takes the upper end to 800 so your 70-200 becomes a 70-400. That might be something to consider. The price is up a tad more but to keep the low end and double the upper end is something that appeals to me - a lot. It might just make me get a 100-400 even though I have the 400 5.6 just to have a zoom going from 100 to 800 with IS - WHOA!!!!! Stick on a set of extension tubes and you can shoot macro in the next county if you've got someone to hold up the other end of the setup. I do have the 70-200 2.8L IS II and the 400 5.6 so I'm covered and I love both of the lens even though the 400 5.6 doesn't have IS and I mainly use it on a tripod. That would be my input! Good luck with your decision.

gessman Loc: Colorado

I may have spoken too soon about the 2xIII and what it does. I had read a review about it holding the low focal length but I've been trying to confirm that and cannot. From what I've read since I posted this early this morning, I haven't been able to confirm what I said. It looks like the bottom end moves up x2 as well as the top end. Sorry!