Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II w/ a Canon 2x teleconverter vs a Canon EF 100-400 f/5.6 (Page 2): I use the Canon 100-400 when using a tripod or monopod, also use the 1.4, with it for good...

Zooman 1

I use the Canon 100-400 when using a tripod or monopod, also use the 1.4, with it for good results. Have the 2x but seldom use it. Also use the Canon 70-300, the newer version and find I use it most of the time, find it to be a very sharp lens.

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

Whether you are using a full or crop frame camera ? - will have a small influence on performance/choice also ..... with the lesser resolution (pixel density) of the FF, any optical deficiencies will be less noticeable.

RRS Loc: Not sure

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

How much reach do you want/need? The 70-200 IS II works very well with the Canon 1.4 III. I also shoot at times with the 2X off a bean bag while shooting from my blind, my car. A lot will depend on the distance you are from your subject. Are you now shooting with a crop body? Another thing to consider is will your camera focus with the 100-400 with a 1.4 because in time you will want more reach. The weight of the 70-200 with a Canon 2X will weigh more then the 100-400 set up. You may want to rent the 100-400 and see what works best for you after all it's your money. Now if you were a congressman it would be our money and you'd be buying a 1DX II and a 600mm f/4.0 with a 1.4 and a 2X, just for starters.

Orson Burleigh Loc: Annapolis, Maryland, USA

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 EF 70-200 f/2.8L II is bright and fast focusing, great for following a bounding, jinking squirrel or wheeling vulture. However, if a choice absolutely had to be made, I would keep the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. The improved 100-400mm is so versatile as to almost qualify as the only lens one really needs. (

It must be noted that the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II's weight very nearly precludes the carrying of a second lens.) Your needs and goals may, of course, lead you to different choices.

lbivins Loc: Green Valley, AZ.

David, Look at the sigma 100-400 c lens. I just sold my 100-400 canon and love this new lens. Focus is sharp through out. Weight and balance are also much better for hand holding. I use this lens on a Canon 5ds full frame and just love it

Pkfish Loc: Wilson Wy

$900 gets a you a used version 1 ,100-400 . It’s a nice lens but not like the newer one. The new one is my go to lens. I personally really don’t like converters. There are some good options out there for affordable long range stuff. Like has been said the new sigma 100-400 looks good.Happy shopping!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

alphonso49uk wrote:

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.

Most all Canon L lenses that are designed with a TC in mind lose little if any when you use a TC. Only light is lost so to say. The major advantage of the 100 - 400mm is focal length vesatility and a far superior close focus capability that all 70 - 200mm f2.8 lenses completely lack regardless of manufacturer. If maximum light, only at the short end, and you don't care about being limited to not getting close then a TC is just fine.

Gampa

Get the 100-400 IS II. The reach and image quality is absolutely fantastic.

A teleconference on your 70-200 will cost you both stops and focus.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

crazydaddio wrote:

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

ENTERED IN ERROR Deleted on purpose.

Sugarlander4711 Loc: Sugar Land, Texas

I have both 70-200mm f2.8L IS I and 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS I and do not have any experience with the newer version II.

My experience is to use 70-200mm f2.8L IS I + 2X extender I with Canon 7D mark II for BIF photography and 100-400mm is too slow to get any good focus with the same camera.

A BIF picture is attached for review. Thanks.

(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Sugarlander4711 wrote:

I have both 70-200mm f2.8L IS I and 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS I and do not have any experience with the newer version II.

My experience is to use 70-200mm f2.8L IS I + 2X extender I with Canon 7D mark II for BIF photography and 100-400mm is too slow to get any good focus with the same camera.

A BIF picture is attached for review. Thanks.

Speed wise the new 100 - 400mm is in a separate league for speed from the old 100 - 400mm.

Sugarlander4711 Loc: Sugar Land, Texas

My concern is if the new 100-400mm which does not have a constant aperture like 70-200mm does can be used in BIF photography with hand held.
Thanks.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

imagemeister wrote:

The optical results of using a 2X with the version... (show quote)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9zWpihW8IE - Tony Northrup's test

Sugarlander4711 Loc: Sugar Land, Texas

Have anyone tried both 100-400mm and 70-200mm with 2X extender in Bird-in-Fly photography?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Sugarlander4711 wrote:

My concern is if the new 100-400mm which does not have a constant aperture like 70-200mm does can be used in BIF photography with hand held.
Thanks.

You are right. The 100 - 400mm is only f5.6 near 400mm. When it gets shorter it gets faster aperture. The 70 - 200mm with the 2x stays at the slowest f 5.6 all the time.