BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

Has anyone used this lens with the 2x or the 1.4 x or with both?
What did you think of it? Also did anyone do a comparison with the latest version of the 100-400 both with and without the 1.4x?

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

I have used my EF 1.4x III extender with both my 70-200 f/2.8 L II and my 100-400 L II and have seen very little degradation of the images. I haven't done anything more then a casual comparison so I can't offer anything definitive, but prints up to 8.5x11 are still excellent. In a couple of weeks I will be at the F1 race in Austin, Tx and plan to do a lot of shooting with my 5DIV and 100-400, both with and without the extender. Hopefully, I will be able to post some comparisons. As far as the EF 2x III extender, I have never used one but have heard from several sources that the degradation is considerably more noticeable.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Have fun at the races.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Yes, Joel. I have it and use the 2X III occasionally with a tripod and outdoors. Works fine for me. The 70 - 200 f/2.8 II is a fabulous lens. I have no experience with the 100 - 400, but everything I've read and have seen posted on UHH indicates it is excellent with the extenders too.
Mark

GalaxyCat Loc: Boston, MA

Thanks for posting. I'm interested in Canon Lenses also.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I've used the 1.4x III with both the 70-200 and the 100-400L II. I encourage you to inspect recent images in the UHH photo gallery from both the Chicago (all of the Blue Angels images) and the Cleveland airshows (final two Thunderbirds) in 2017. You can assess with your own eyes the relative quality of the results with an extended 100-400L II. The AF is slightly less responsive on the 100-400 when extended and use of AI Servo and BBF is a tip encouraged when using the 1.4x.

From a practical standpoint, if you want to shoot at 400mm, the 100-400L II is a better choice. The results will be sharper between 100 and 400 than the 70-200 extended by the 2x as well as having a wider aperture available during shorter portions of the zoom.

The 70-200 extended to just 280mm doesn't buy you that much if you own the 100-400L II. Use of the 1.4x on the 70-200 is not discernable in the results if stepped down to f/5 or smaller. I was using the lens within the zoom range anyways and found the 1.4x accomplished nothing other than limiting the max aperture. The 70-200 is more beneficial for the f/2.8, the amazing IS and the AF speed than it's ability to be extended to 280mm or 400mm.

Given the negligible difference between 70mm and 100mm, the 100-400L II is more versatile than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS in all situations except indoors / lowlight. The lenses are roughly the same size and weight.

Haydon

I have used the the 70-200 2.8L II with a Canon 1.4 III teleconverter and found only a very minor hit to clarity and contrast that can be easily adjusted in post to the point any loss is completely negligible. The 2X I cannot comment on as I do not own one but I have seen some rather surprisingly results. the 70-200 is one of the few zoom lenses that fairs well with both extenders when good technique is implemented.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

I have the 100-400 with the 1.4 on my 5DIII and the quality is very good, with and without the 1.4. Makes for damn fine macro lens when you don't have a chance to change your lens. Shot a dragon fly at 4 feet while waiting for egrets at 50 feet or more.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I have the lens and the 2.0 TC III. I don't have the 1.4 TC at this point. I feel I get good results with the 2.0. Especially if using for online viewing and not making giant prints. I am not sure I am smart enough to do a careful and thoughtful comparison to the 100-400 II if I had one. I know it is a great lens but I don't care for the length changes as one zooms...a compromise that is there I guess.

I have a friend, Tara, that shoots the 100-400 II on her 5D3 a lot. You can see her images on Facebook at Black Rock Photography. She loves the lens.

I like my combination as I can get out past 200mm but can shoot indoors with the smaller 70-200. If you want to try it all out, get the stuff from someone like B&H where you can return it if it is not what you desire.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Will be looking forward to this !
(Can you rent a 150-600sigma C and do a side by side of them all....the rest of us 5dmiv 70-200 and sigma 150-600 owners will pass the hat and pay for the results :-)

Haydon

I totally understand that. I own the 70-300 4-5.6L. It's a great lens and compact but I seem more likely to pick the 70-200 2.8L II first simply because of the constant F Stop regardless of the weight difference. I'm a huge advocate for the internal zoom as well. If there's any internal lens creep, I don't see it :)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I agree with everything said here. Using the 70-200 W/2X makes the most sense if you ALREADY have the 70-200 and do NOT have a 100-400 ....( and maybe cannot afford BOTH) ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two IMO, is that the 70-200 is INTERNAL ZOOM and can be zoomed quickly with the tips of one or two fingers and will hold balance on a tripod/monopod better. Also, IMO, you do not necessarily need the Canon 2XIII - the Tamron SP 2X also works very well - maybe better !

Canon 70-200 2.8 II and Tamron SP 2X from monopod , 1 stop down from wide open (f8)

(Download)

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Not sure what you mean by the length changes as one zooms? It is after all a zoom lens which is it's strength and no sarcasm meant. I toyed with 70-200 but it just did not give me the reach for birds, animals in general and for the few times I need 2.8 I'll kick the ISO up.

I have some 16X24 and bigger and the quality is not just good but excellent.

Gampa

Thanks CHG Cannon. Good detailed response.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I should have been more precise in saying the 70-200 is internal zoom, the overall lens length does not change. The 100-400 II is external zoom and gets longer or shorter as you zoom. I just find I prefer internal zoom if possible. Both are excellent lenses though.

Best,
Todd Ferguson