Canon. 100-400 L. good, bad or mediocre?

Started Oct 29, 2012 | Discussions thread
Senior MemberPosts: 2,741Gear list
Re: Why not get a 70-200/2.8II and a 2xTC?
In reply to Greg Lavaty, Nov 1, 2012

Greg Lavaty wrote:

I haven’t ever used the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II so I can’t make much of an informed comment but based on my experience with the mk1 version of the lens and the EF 2x II I wonder how the AF performance of the combo you suggested is vs the 100-400 IS. I would imagine that the much newer IS in the 70-200 would be significantly better. I do personally prefer the push-pull zoom. I think you have raised an interesting question.


The pros and cons of the 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2xTC III vs. the 100-400L have been discussed many times on this forum.

My recollection of the prevailing views:

- IQ at 400mm is pretty much a wash (that's with the mark III TC; IQ will be poorer with the mark II TC)

- AF is a little faster with the 100-400 (without the TC, the 70-200 II's AF will be faster)

- Two more stops of IS with the 70-200 II

- 70-200 II + TC weighs around 61 oz; 100-400 weighs 48 oz

- 100-400 is more compact in retracted position

- 100-400 costs about $1000 less

My own view is that if your primary need is a 400mm zoom, the 100-400L is the better choice. OTOH, if you have other reasons for wanting or needing a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II in your bag, but also want 400mm capability, then going the TC III route makes a lot of sense.

 bhollis's gear list:bhollis's gear list
Sony RX1R Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow