Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II w/ a Canon 2x teleconverter vs a Canon EF 100-400 f/5.6: I, like many Canon users, love my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens. I have been thinking of a longer lens...

DavidPhares Loc: Chandler, Arizona

I, like many Canon users, love my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens. I have been thinking of a longer lens like the 100-400mm f/5.6. My question is will the 70-200 with a Canon 2X teleconverter give as sharp an image as the 100-400 f/5.6. I do not want to part with my 70-200, and I can get a good used teleconverter for only about $250 - $300, which is less than 1/3 the cost of a good used 100-400. Any recommendations?

Thanks for your time and consideration.

David

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The prime with no converter will be sharper. If the issue is strictly cost, get a version III 2x. If the issue is image quality at 400mm, look at a Canon EF prime or zoom that reaches this focal length with no extender.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

DavidPhares wrote:

I, like many Canon users, love my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens. I have been thinking of a longer lens like the 100-400mm f/5.6. My question is will the 70-200 with a Canon 2X teleconverter give as sharp an image as the 100-400 f/5.6. I do not want to part with my 70-200, and I can get a good used teleconverter for only about $250 - $300, which is less than 1/3 the cost of a good used 100-400. Any recommendations?

Thanks for your time and consideration.

David

I had this exact debate a year ago.
Based on all my research, UHH/DPReview forumn comments, youtube video comparisons blah blah blah....it came down to this....it depends :-)

I chose the Sigma 150-600 C grey market from Amazon at 1000 cndn. If I had to do it over again...probably make the same choice.

Net:
IQ - get the 100-400
Cost - get the used tele
Reach - get the Sigma (more $ get the Tamron G2 version of the 150-600)
AF speed /accuracy - they will all work . 70-200 native is blazing but with tele is probably on par with the others. They will all be acceptable.
Weight - not a huge diff between them all
Flexibility - tele (dont need to pack 2 big lenses)

Good luck! Probably my most agonizing lens decision i have made to date as the options and costs are so close .... comes down to what feature you value more for the money.

The marketing guys are doing an excellent job of pricing to balance features to cost...making the decision so difficult.

banster Loc: PA, Ontario, N.C.,Key West

I have all 3 that you list. My 100-400 is the Mk ll,which I assume you are referring to. Shooting mostly wildlife with the 7D Mk ll. If I am shooting any distance, I’ll use the 100-400. For close, 20’ to 200’, I’ll use the 70-200. As the 7D has a crop factor of 1.6 the 70-200 is 112-320 and the 100-400 equals 160-640. I really don’t use the 2X lll. When I use the 2X with the 70-200 with the 7D equals 224-640 and f/2.8 becomes f/5.6. That all being said, I believe the 100-400 is better at distance, without the 2X than the 70-200 is with the 2X. For close work I’ll take the 70-200. A friend has the 1.4 converter which in my opinion would be a better choice. The 100-400 can produce some great closeups though.

JPringle Loc: Australia

Hi DavidPhares

I have an EF 70-200, and an EF 100-400.
I find the Mk III Canon extender is usable on the EF 70-200 but sometimes frustrating because of IQ and focus speed. So best on a still subject, and in very good light. The EF 100-400 is better than that combo. The difference to my eye being greater than that of the EF 100-400 and the EF 100-400 II without extenders.

I also find that nearly all Canon lens/Canon extender combinations work better a bit better on a 1D body. I assume its the power supply.

But I do find that both the extenders are very handy to have, but I'm using the x1.4 more than ten times the x2. I also use them to increase close up magnification.

Phil

chaman

DavidPhares wrote:

I, like many Canon users, love my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens. I have been thinking of a longer lens like the 100-400mm f/5.6. My question is will the 70-200 with a Canon 2X teleconverter give as sharp an image as the 100-400 f/5.6. I do not want to part with my 70-200, and I can get a good used teleconverter for only about $250 - $300, which is less than 1/3 the cost of a good used 100-400. Any recommendations?

Thanks for your time and consideration.

David

No. The 100-400 will be sharper and focus faster than your other option. You will be frustrated by the results obtained with the teleconverter.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

DavidPhares wrote:

I, like many Canon users, love my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens. I have been thinking of a longer lens like the 100-400mm f/5.6. My question is will the 70-200 with a Canon 2X teleconverter give as sharp an image as the 100-400 f/5.6. I do not want to part with my 70-200, and I can get a good used teleconverter for only about $250 - $300, which is less than 1/3 the cost of a good used 100-400. Any recommendations?

Thanks for your time and consideration.

David

The optical results of using a 2X with the version II 70-200 are very GOOD - almost equal to the 100-400, VERY close ! You do give up a fractional amount of AF speed - if that matters. I have used a Tamron SP 2X and been completely satisfied. If money matters, if I were you, I would try the Tamron SP or the Kenko 2X and see how you like it. The optical results get better as you stop down - ie f8. If you think the Tamron or Kenko could be better - try the Canon III version. IMO, the biggest advantage for the III version will be AF speed - again, if that matters.

Haydon

As Larry indicated, the 70-200 2.8L II accepts a 2x fairly well but a native lens will ultimately perform better. Lens Rentals a ways back claimed that the 100-400L is one of the best built lenses ever made. Worth the read.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever/

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

DavidPhares wrote:

I, like many Canon users, love my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens. I have been thinking of a longer lens like the 100-400mm f/5.6. My question is will the 70-200 with a Canon 2X teleconverter give as sharp an image as the 100-400 f/5.6. I do not want to part with my 70-200, and I can get a good used teleconverter for only about $250 - $300, which is less than 1/3 the cost of a good used 100-400. Any recommendations?

Thanks for your time and consideration.

David

IF your love of your 70-200mm is so great then forget the 100-400mm! There are many of us who felt the same way you do and most of us can't remember that last time we used the 70-200mm! The 100-400mm v.ii is THAT good. Think of framing a shot at 800mms and your subject is only 4 feet away! Those number are very workable but not with your 70-200.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

I shoot Sony but faced the same question. I have a 70-200mm f 2.8 top of the line lens. I mated it with a top of the line Sony 2x tele converter. I see no loss of iq, and use the combo all the time. when you are using the best there are no defects to magnify.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

davidrb wrote:

IF your love of your 70-200mm is so great then forget the 100-400mm! There are many of us who felt the same way you do and most of us can't remember that last time we used the 70-200mm! The 100-400mm v.ii is THAT good. Think of framing a shot at 800mms and your subject is only 4 feet away! Those number are very workable but not with your 70-200.

....but ya gotta love that 2.8....
When the light gets low, the 70-200 rules !

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

DavidPhares wrote:

I, like many Canon users, love my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens. I have been thinking of a longer lens like the 100-400mm f/5.6. My question is will the 70-200 with a Canon 2X teleconverter give as sharp an image as the 100-400 f/5.6. I do not want to part with my 70-200, and I can get a good used teleconverter for only about $250 - $300, which is less than 1/3 the cost of a good used 100-400. Any recommendations?

Thanks for your time and consideration.

David

Some time ago, when I was still a Canon user, Tony and Chelsea Northrup addressed this question in one of their vidoes. They concluded that the 70 - 200mm f2.8L + 2 x TC produced sharper images thant the Canon 100 - 400 f4.5/5.6L II. Check out his video on his Youtube channel.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

DavidPhares wrote:

I, like many Canon users, love my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens. I have been thinking of a longer lens like the 100-400mm f/5.6. My question is will the 70-200 with a Canon 2X teleconverter give as sharp an image as the 100-400 f/5.6. I do not want to part with my 70-200, and I can get a good used teleconverter for only about $250 - $300, which is less than 1/3 the cost of a good used 100-400. Any recommendations?

Thanks for your time and consideration.

David

The 100 - 400mm is better IQ than the 70-200mm, both latest versions, let alone put a 2x on the 70-200mm.
Check Canon's MTF charts.

alphonso49uk

I had the 70-200 with 2x converter on a 6d a couple of years ago and found it an excellent combination. I could tell very little difference in IQ at all which was surprising since most of the online experts at the time said there would be plenty of image deterioration and slower focusing. I never noticed any of that at all.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

DavidPhares wrote:

I, like many Canon users, love my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens. I have been thinking of a longer lens like the 100-400mm f/5.6. My question is will the 70-200 with a Canon 2X teleconverter give as sharp an image as the 100-400 f/5.6. I do not want to part with my 70-200, and I can get a good used teleconverter for only about $250 - $300, which is less than 1/3 the cost of a good used 100-400. Any recommendations?

Thanks for your time and consideration.

David

100-400, and get it quick before I change my mind.