Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv.  
User currently offlineCanberra From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 310 posts, RR: 4
Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7604 times:

Does anyone work with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with Canons 2x Converter?

Would the lens' AF and IS work with the converter?

If yes, what would be best, the above or the Canon Ef 100-400mm f/ 4.5/5.6L IS.

Untill 200mm I guess the 70-200  Smile but lets say on 300-400mm?

All the best, Michael


It takes courage to push things forward . . (Mo Mowlam)
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7554 times:

Michael,

This topic has been discussed a lot on the past... but I'll summarize, since thats all I know I wanted when I went looking back a few months.

1. The 70-200 will work with the 1.4x and 2x conveters, WITH autofocus still functional.
2. The 70-200 alone is sharper than the 100-400 up to 200mm. AF is faster.
3. The 70-200 + 1.4x is slightly sharper than the 100-400 up to 280mm. AF is about equal. 98-280mm F4.
4. The 70-200 + 2x is not quite as sharp as the 1-4 up to 400mm, but its close. AF is slower, but more accurate. 140-200mm F5.6
5. The IS on the 70-200 is 3rd generation, and is more highly regarded than the Gen 2 on the 1-4.
6. 70-200 and converters will run you a bit more than the 1-4.
7. 1-4 is lighter, with a larger "zoom" amount (4x compared to 2.9).
8. You can't beat F2.8 glass.

Having used a 1-4 and 70-200 with 2x, I'm going to go with the latter. It's still plenty sharp, the AF is still plenty fast... I prefer the ability to have F2.8 when I need it, and back out to 70mm when I know the stuff is going to be close.

-Mike



The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
User currently offlineCanberra From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7481 times:

Thanks for the re-cap Mike,

Didn't find the earlier discussions but I guess the above is all I need.

/Michael



It takes courage to push things forward . . (Mo Mowlam)
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1060 posts, RR: 33
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7473 times:

Hi Michael
Due to the vagaries of Canon QC it really is a mixed bag depending on how good your 70-200 is or how good your 100-400 is.
Given the large variations in QC this will lead to a wide variety of conditions and opinions.
I have both and tested the 70-200 against the 100-400 and my 100-400 wins hands down versus the 70-200 with 2X.
Yes the 70-200 is sharper at less than 200mm,equal with a 1.4 but inferior with a 2x.
The entire reason you buy a 100-400 is for its performance at >300mm and there the 70-200 cannot compete.
I am yet to see a photo from a 70-200 2.8 with 2x at 400mm which comes anywhere near a 100-400 or a Sigma 50-500 for that matter when > 280mm.
The ideal situation is to use your 70-200 for ramp work and then a 100-400 for long range stuff.
The AF on the 100-400 is from where i sit fast as you will ever want except for maybe Formula One work at close range and really doesn't come into the argument.
If you want good long range glass then a compromise can be made by using a 2X but it will never be anywhere near as sharp as the 100-400L.
HTH
Darren

Here is an example of what you can get from a 100-400L at 400mm.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Howie


Or from Wietse

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf - AirTeamImages





2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7469 times:


Personally I didn't like my 100-400 for the following reasons.
Push pull zoom
Mine was soft at the longer range
Internal dust.

My mainstay now is a 70-200 f2.8 IS L with the extenders. Typically I use the lens with a 1.4x. I've yet to use the 2x as I opt for my other lens for this range.

For reach over 300 I use a Sigma 300mm f2.8 with and without the 1.4x extender.

300mm + 1.4x Extender (left) and 70-200 + 1.4x (right)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Martin Aves
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Martin Aves



Martin





User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7453 times:

I parted with my 100-400 in favour of the 70-200 plus convertors, and would concur with the initial summary. I'd disagree with Darren in so far as I think the 2x combo can indeed come very close to the 100-400 at 400mm.

Also, I don't think the reason to buy a 100-400 is performance at 400mm - for this you would do better to buy a 300 and convertors giving you 420mm and 600mm. The main reason is that it is a damn useful lens at airports or airshows where you have a variety of subject matter at different ranges.

As to 2x image quality, I think this shot demonstrates adequate sharpness, as well as a rather nice "bokeh" on the background


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin K. Work - AirTeamImages




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1060 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7434 times:

Agree with Colin 100% that the advantage of the single purchase 100-400 is for a single lens which covers a lot of bases in good form.
Remembering the entire advantage of the zoom over the fixed lens being its flexibility and its downfall an overall reduction in picture quality.
Just looking at Martins shots really shows how good the longer fixed length lens is.
The 70-200 2.8 is an awesome lens and one of the better ones from a QC point from Canon.The 100-400 is not so with some people getting a ripper(like me) and others (Martin) getting ones not so good.
You really have to decide what you want and where you are happy to make a compromise even if its a small one as Colin demonstrates with his shots.
Pay your maoney and make your choice but whichever way you go a compromise is on the cards.
Darren




2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7420 times:

Darren,

Thanks for the plug, but its actually not a very good comparison  Smile My shot was cropped extremely (more than 60%), so sharpness is not that good...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf - AirTeamImages



This would be a better demonstration of its capabilities.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7397 times:

Hi all,

Michael for a real indication you better mail some photographers for either full size images or crops of full size images as its not hard to make a shot look good for a.net with editing.

What important is the out of the camera shots

Cheers

Ben Pritchard


User currently offlineCanberra From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7389 times:

Thanks all,

After checking the bank account I went for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS + a 2x converter because of the future:

With the 100-400 people talk about wanting something better for 300-400mm shots. If buying something better the 100-400 kind of gets redundant, the 70-200 will still be one of the best in it's field.

Again thanks for you input

Michael



It takes courage to push things forward . . (Mo Mowlam)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv. posted Wed Aug 11 2004 18:52:38 by Canberra
Canon 70-200 F2.8 +2x Vs 100-400 posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:42:06 by Donder10
Canon 100-400 Or 70-200 + 2X TC? posted Sun Jul 20 2003 14:59:20 by Mirage
Canon 100-400 Is And The Sigma 50-500mm posted Thu Oct 20 2005 05:07:51 by LOT767-300ER
Canon 100-400 L Is On A Tripod? posted Sat Nov 6 2004 19:41:27 by Mfz
Canon 100-400 L IS, Advice Required :-) posted Wed May 26 2004 09:31:47 by Jkw777
My First Canon 100-400 Is Photos posted Fri Apr 2 2004 00:43:54 by Woody001
Help Needed: Canon 100-400 Mm Is Lens posted Thu Jan 29 2004 11:12:21 by Paulianer
Sigma 80-400 VS Canon 100-400 posted Tue Sep 13 2005 22:03:56 by Mrk25
Lens To Compliment Canon 100-400L Is? posted Fri Jul 16 2004 06:41:24 by Bronko