Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 70-200 F2.8 +2x Vs 100-400  
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 20
Posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 18729 times:

considering a purchase for the Canon 100-400 in the medium future but I want to find out how it compares to the Canon 70-200 2.8 when it has the 2x extender added to it(making it F5.6 I believe?).Obviously the 70-200 will outperform the 100-400 upto 200mm when the extender is not used,but how much sharpness is lost when the extender is added and how does this compare to the 100-400 in the 200-400mm range?
Thanks a lot,D10.

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9646 posts, RR: 42
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 18667 times:

Quoting Donder10 (Thread starter):
I want to find out how it compares to the Canon 70-200 2.8

Isn't that discontinued? Is it still available?

User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18626 times:

Guess this is what you are looking for  Wink

Have fun,

The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineAdamWright From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 18593 times:

I've used both.. and I experienced better results from the 100-400.. than from the 70-200 2.8 NON-IS (with the 2x and without)


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1093 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 18562 times:

This one has been discussed a few times.
One of the larger websited has a direct image to image comparison and the 100-400 is a pretty clear winner when compared against the 70-200 with the TC.
Without the TC its a different story but its only 200mm long.

User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1642 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 2 days ago) and read 18471 times:

Alex, check your PM.

EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 18454 times:

Thanks for the info,guys.I'm leaning towards the 70-200 with the 1.4 due to the added flexibility it would offer me for some spots I use a lot where 100mm would be pretty difficult to use.

nothing's come through yet.Did you use the link in my profile?

User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2160 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 18345 times:


I am thinking about the same thing, I know that the 70-200 with the 2x isn't as good as the 100-400 but if you think about it, we have 70-200 at 2.8... I am going to be getting the 1.4x converter... I think thats the way to go if shooting long range. I will eventually get the 100-400 and no the 2x converter


Drive it like you stole it!
User currently offlinePumaknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 18311 times:

I have just made the decision to switch to the 70-200 f2.8 with 2x. Am selling my 100-400 on ebay.

Primarily, I am switching to benefit from the f2.8 that the 70-200 gives me. I had the chance to back to back testing in the shop and to be honest, if you get a good 70-200, the difference is so marginal, there is no real difference when viewing the images at normal size. It is only when you crop in very close that you see any difference. But that is a really tight crop, as seen on the site referenced above.

For photos on this site I would think you would be hard pushed to see the difference.

Hope this helps.
Michael H

User currently offlineQ330 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 18304 times:

I've always gotten good results from the 70-200 w/ 1.4x and I'd definitely recommend this combination. Of course, the lens by itself is excellent, and the 1.4x gives you a bit of extra reach when you need it.

However, I'm always reluctant to use the 2x as it produces very soft results. It would sometimes be nice to have a 100-400 but I don't think it outweighs the benefits of the 70-200.


Long live the A330!
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...
Sigma Or Canon 70-200 F2.8? posted Thu Feb 2 2006 18:25:30 by Morvious
Canon 28-300 Is USM Vs. 100-400 Is USM posted Wed Sep 28 2005 19:16:27 by Stefan
Canon 70-200 F2.8 USM posted Mon Oct 4 2004 21:30:12 by Jat74l
Anyone Shoot Canon 70-200 Is W/2x? posted Wed Feb 12 2003 23:40:31 by Planedoctor
Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv. posted Wed Aug 11 2004 18:52:38 by Canberra
Canon: 100-400 LIS Vesus 70-200 F2.8 LIS + 2x posted Thu Feb 19 2004 14:51:18 by Glennstewart
Canon 70-200 Vs 100-400 L Lens posted Sun Oct 13 2002 23:35:28 by Fly-K
Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 EX Vs Canon 70-200 F/4L posted Fri Jul 22 2005 07:30:42 by DLKAPA
Canon 70-200 F/2.8L Vs. F/2.8L Is Vs. 35-350... posted Thu Aug 26 2004 01:19:56 by QantasA332
Nikon 80-200 F2.8D ED-N Vs Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX? posted Tue Apr 1 2003 00:02:45 by Richie777