canberra
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:32 pm

Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv.

Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:52 am

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)
 
rotor1
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 8:57 am

RE: Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv.

Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:08 am

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
 
canberra
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:32 pm

RE: Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv.

Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:08 pm

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)
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv.

Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:53 pm

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
 
Tin67
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 3:49 am

RE: Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv.

Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:21 pm


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



 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv.

Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:13 pm

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
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv.

Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:42 pm

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
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv.

Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:12 pm

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
 
LGW
Posts: 4281
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 6:07 pm

RE: Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv.

Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:13 pm

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
 
canberra
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:32 pm

RE: Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv.

Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:50 am

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)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests