OHenry Loc: St. Michaels, MD

For shooting wildlife, mostly birds, which combo will be better?
1) Canon 7D/ 100-400 mm lens
2) Canon 7D/ 70-200mm lens/1.4 teleconverter

I had to eliminate the 7D/100-400mm lens/1.4 teleconverter from contention because I know I will not have AF with that combo and I really need it for hand holding. Thanks for helping me with this.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Is it the original push pull 100-400 or the version II? Is the 70-200 the original or version II and is it f/2.8?

If the 70-200 is the f/2.8 version and you are using a Canon 1.4 II or III TC the end result will probably be similar to the 100-400. If it's version II of the 100-400, well, that lens is sharper than some primes.

Cute dog...

OHenry Loc: St. Michaels, MD

Latest version on the 100-400,f/2.8; 70-200 is f/2.8; TC is III. What would you be taking out with you?
Dog is Bertha(JRT) at age 15. Lost her a couple of years ago; just can't take her photo down. She was a hoot!

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

I use a 70-400mm, wouldn't want anything shorter for birds.
200 x 1.4 is only 280mm and why put the extra glass in there if you don't need to.

OHenry Loc: St. Michaels, MD

Does the crop factor of the 7D add anything???..I'm bad at math!

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

Yes, I shoot a 1.5 crop sensor so my 400mm is the equivalent of 600mm.
I think the 7D is a 1.6 crop, so that would be 160-640mm with the 400.
That would get you 112-448mm with the 200mm and 1.4X TC.
I would still go with the 100-400 and no TC.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Me too.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The newest version Canon 100-400mm with its recent 1.4X teleconverter, do well together with little or no degradation. Full frame.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Agreed, and a great combination, but the OP mentioned that his body would not autofocus with that combination (f8 at longest length).

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Any teleconverter will also amplify any defects a lens might have by a factor equal to the converter. Thus, I'd opt for the 100-400 instead.
--Bob

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IMO, The older push pull 100-400 zooms faster that the new one. - Both 100-400's are lighter than the 70-200 2.8 W/1.4X - and it is nicer to have the extra range of the 100-400 !

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

The 100-400 is the better solution, if you can afford it get the Mark II version, you will not be disappointed.

(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

For your shooting the 100 - 400mm is far more versatile. With birds you will likely be at 400mm most of the time. then you can back off clear to 100mm for larger wildlife if needed. Then the close focus is about 3 feet at 400mm and no other zoom or prime even come close to this at any price giving you a nearly macro lens (very close shots of small flowers, bugs etc. That the 70 -200mm can't even think of doing all in one incredible, sharp all metal and solidly built lens that is tack sharp.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Definitely the 100-400mm (either version) on 7D (either version).

For one, those get you to 400mm. A 70-200 with 1.4X only gets you to 280mm. With wildlife... especially smaller and shyer critters like birds... you need all the focal length you can get.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens will always reduce image quality a little or a lot (depends in part upon the quality of the teleconverter)... especially a zoom. Teleconverters generally work better with primes than they do with zooms.

But, it part it depends upon which TC is used with which 70-200mm. For example, the EF 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II handles TCs better than any of the other Canon 70-200s, expecially when it's one of the Canon Mark III TCs.

I have occasionally used a Canon 1.4X II on Canon 70-200mm lenses (original f2.8 IS and f4 IS). But that's rare since I have two 300mm, a 500mm and more recently 100-400mm II. I mostly use the 1.4X on those prime lenses. Supposedly it works pretty well on the 100-400mm too, but I haven't tried it yet.

I also have the Canon 2X II teleconverter, but I will not use it on either 70-200mm. There's just too much loss of image quality with the stronger teleconverter on those zooms. I only use it on a couple of the primes.

By the way, if you have 7D Mark II, it will AF 100-400 with 1.4X (which would get you to 560mm). On original 7D won't. The 7DII is "f8 capable", while the original 7D is "f5.6 limited".



Not by very much. The 100-400 II weighs 3.5 lbs. The 70-200/2.8 IS II weighs 3.3 lbs and the EF 1.4X III weighs 8 oz. So the total weight of 70-200/2.8 II + 1.4X III is about 3.8 lbs. (This assumes that you leave the tripod mounting ring on the 70-200, which is full removable and weighs 4 oz. On the 100-400mm II tripod ring only the foot itself is removable and it weighs about 2 oz.)



Yes, it would... if you were comparing with a full frame camera.

But since you are comparing two different lenses one the same 7D it's meaningless to "do any math". A 400mm is twice as powerful as a 200mm lens, regardless of the sensor format of the camera it's used upon.

Just be happy that you're getting a "free 1.6X teleconverter" simply by using the lens on a 7D instead of a full frame camera. That, along with the 7D's high performance focus system, will serve you well shooting wildlife.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Some people do prefer the original 100-400's push/pull zoom design for certain things, such as birds in flight, airshows or any other subjects where very quick zooming can be helpful. However the 100-400 II isn't exactly slow zooming either.... unlike most Canon zooms, it's zoom ring is the foremost and larger one, falls directly in hand when working with the lens and turning that ring 100 degrees (just over 1/4 turn) will zoom the lens all the way from 100 to 400mm. There also is a small ring behind the zoom ring where you can adjust the zooming tension from quite loose to fully locked, and anywhere in between.

The 100-400 II has better IS than the first version. It is the "self detecting" type so you don't need to remember to turn it off if you're locking the lens down on a tripod. With the first version you did. Also, the 100-400 II is the least expensive Canon lens to date that features "Mode 3" IS, which is "instant IS" that's found on the Mark II super teles that cost at least 3X as much. This mode only activates IS at the very instant of exposure.... which suggests that the IS must be extremely fast acting if it can engage and do it's job during the fraction of a second of an exposure.

The 100-400mm lenses are not internal zooming... they grow longer when zoomed. This can effect balance a little and might make them a little less well sealed for dust and moisture resistance... but they also are L-series, so have had a lot of attention to sealing. The Canon 70-200 lenses are all internal focusing and zooming... stay the same length regardless.

The guys over at Lensrentals.com love to take things apart, just to see what's inside. They did that with the 100-400 Mark II and call it one of the best built zooms they've ever seen. You can find their teardown report, complete with pictures, on their blog. Of course that lens has only been available for a little over a year, so we'll have to wait and see if this translates into long term durability. Some of the 70-200s have been in continuous production for as much as 20 years and they've certainly proven their durability.