Donder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 20 Posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 17417 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.
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1083 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17250 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.
Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2160 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 17033 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
Pumaknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 16999 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.
Q330 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16992 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.