Canon 100-400 vs 70-200 plus 2xTC for safari

I have searched thru the forum and have not seen this question asked so I would appreciate any opinions. I am planning on going on an African safari next summer and would like to purchase the appropriate lens. I currently have the canon 7D with several short lenses but nothing with any real reach. I was thinking about the new 70-300L but when I went to photoexpo in NY last week the canon people told me that a better choice was the 70-200 2.8 with a 2XTC. I have also read in this forum that many people prefer the 100-400L for safari. Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
Canon 100-400 vs 70-200 plus 2xTC for safari

I am going to watch this thread with interest. I am considering upgrading my 70-300 IS USM and was debating which way to go to. The 70-200 and t/c does seem appealing albeit an expensive choice. The plus side is that you get 2.8 in the 70-200 range which would be good.

I was in the same position a while ago and after testing on my 60D my 70-200 is II + canon tc 2x II against a mint 100-400 i decided not to keep the 100-400 as the IQ was indistinguishable between the two and the 70-200 has a much more effective IS. After using the 70-200+tc combo for some time now i have to say that the only drawback is the slower focus aquisition (it is very hard to follow BIF for example) which could be a problem depending on your subject. With larger animals you should be ok. The old 400 f5.6 l prime is a lot better in that respect and also focuses in good light with the Kenko dgx 1.4 tc.

Traumamd said:

I have searched thru the forum and have not seen this question asked so I would appreciate any opinions. I am planning on going on an African safari next summer and would like to purchase the appropriate lens. I currently have the canon 7D with several short lenses but nothing with any real reach. I was thinking about the new 70-300L but when I went to photoexpo in NY last week the canon people told me that a better choice was the 70-200 2.8 with a 2XTC. I have also read in this forum that many people prefer the 100-400L for safari. Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
Canon 100-400 vs 70-200 plus 2xTC for safari

Click to expand...

Go back and reread some of the posts others have provided about their choices and experiences. It frequently depends on the specific excursion you are taking.

I have not been on a safari myself, but do have and use the 70-200 2.8 mkII and the 100-400 for wildlife on my 7D. I would never consider using my 70-200 + TC to replace my 100-400 if I need more than 200mm.

Putting a TC on any lens defeats whatever advantage a wider aperture may have and slows AF speed, plus there will always be some degradation if IQ.

Low light capability has been mentioned as a consideration on some safaris, as has the recommendation to take second body. And, because you have the 7D, get the equipment early enough you can MA you lenses before you go. It can make a huge difference.

I am think the right answer may be AND not OR involving these two lenses

--

I started in the 50's - my first picture was taken with a Leica and hooked me for life. I no longer use my Leicas, but I am still taking pictures. Some things never change.

Personally I'd go with the 100-400mm.

But I have seen a few reviews of the 70-200mm f2.8 L II with the new 2x TC III that claim it is just as good but more expensive.

Traumamd said:

I have searched thru the forum and have not seen this question asked so I would appreciate any opinions.

Click to expand...

Here are several years' worth of "safari" threads...

http://search.dpreview.com/?forumid=1029&scope=Forums&sort=date&q=safari&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

I was thinking about the new 70-300L but when I went to photoexpo in NY last week the canon people told me that a better choice was the 70-200 2.8 with a 2XTC.

If you go this route, then I'd only recommend the 70-200 f2.8L Mk II, with the 1.4x and 2x Mk III TCs. You'll get better IQ with the newer versions.

Traumamd said:

I have also read in this forum that many people prefer the 100-400L for safari. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

It's not considered THE Safari lens for nothing. Just make sure you get a sharp copy. The AF will be considerably faster than any other lens with TC.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

It's hard to go wrong with either choice. Since Art Morris (whom I consider one of the best bird photographers in the world) has gone to the 70-200 2.8 II with a 2X TC III, I have as well. I've been very happy with the results. I used this combination for almost all my wildlife shots on a recent trip to Norway/Svalbard, so feel free to take a look and judge the results for yourself:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/philwitt/sets/72157627231212324/

This Wed. I leave for a week in Botswana, and although I'll be taking my 400 DO (which I plan to use with a 1.4 TC), I expect that much of my work will be with my 70-200/2X TC combo. But I have some friends who have the 100-400, and they've done terrific work with that lens, so I suspect that it's 6 of one and a half dozen of the other.

Phil

I weighed this option for some time & finally sold my 100-400L after I got the 70-200II IS to use with my converters to see if it could replace it & to give me low light options. I found it was a good fit Recently I went on a 4 mile hike along a river for fall colors & decided to take one body & 3 lenses. One lens was the 70-200mm II IS with 2xII converter incase I saw some wildlife. It worked perfectly for my needs. I have also used this combo with my 7D & it works great. JMHO The focus speed is only a tad slower than the 100-400L if any at all.

Hope this helps a little, Cheers
5DII, 70-200mm, 2xII @400mm, f6.3, 1/80s, ISO 1600





5DII, 70-200mm, 2xII @400mm, f7.1, 1/320s, ISO 1250





--
http://www.JonSmithers.com GtoJon -
Taken any photographs lately?

I had both, returned the 70-200mm f/2.8 mk II and kept the 100-400. Its lighter, stores easily when telescoped, focuses faster, and is half the cost. Putting on and taking off a TC is no fun either, I much prefer to leave a lens on the camera. I do have a 70-200mm f/4 IS which is great for walk around use.

100-400mm L taken at 400mm in my driveway.

I went with the 70-200 mk II +2 X III .

Several reasons - Better IS , coatings and AF . The 100-400 may or may not be updated . There is a big difference between ranges - try 2.8 at 200 and 5.6 at 200 .
--
1st it's a hobby
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , ef 18-55 IS
EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS
Quantaray lens 70-300 macro
Sigma 135 - 400 , 180 MACRO
2X III , Life Size converter
KSM filters for all
kenko auto tubes , EF 25

I have both – try swapping out one lens for the other in a hurry, or putting a TC on or off, while you watch your quarry disappear into the distance.

Each has its own place, but one can’t replace the other.
--

I started in the 50's - my first picture was taken with a Leica and hooked me for life. I no longer use my Leicas, but I am still taking pictures. Some things never change.

I use both and never use 100-400 unless I have to...72isii smokes it for IQ (especially resolution), IS and speed of AF.... plus the large and variable aperture of 100-400 spoils many photos....

I even prefer 72isii plus 1.4xiii to using 100-400, but I would suspect that unless light is really good that 100-400 would usually beat the 72isii + 2xiii, simply because all 2x do debilitate IQ... too much for me.

You may also consider 400mm f/5.6 prime, which is

1. Relatively cheap
2. Has a faster AF than 100-400mm
3. Very sharp across the whole frame
4. Light
5. Doesn't have dust problems of 100-400mm

i tried both and, to be honest, was not very impressed by the 100-400mm (perhaps my copy was not good enough).

Search the forum - there are tons of threads comparing 400mm vs 100-400mm.

I own the 70-200 and as rad as it is, I think for safari you really want the 100-400. As someone else said, changing lenses and TCs is a pain in the behind. Just leave the 100-400 on there and go for it. It appears to be plenty sharp wide open and to be honest, 200 2.8 is actually quite hit and miss sometimes with such shallow DOF. You wanna stop down a bit, I've found.
--
http://www.andrewfordphoto.com/
http://flickr.com/photos/andrew_ford

I think if you're going to 70-200/2x route, you're committing to the 140-400mm range, rather than flipping the 2x on and off. The dust concern is very real, and while I really didn't have many experiences that called for fast focusing (animals were pretty sedate), the time to switch lenses was often not there. I had the 7d with the 100-400, and a 30d with a 15-85 for closer encounters of bigger animals.

With the higher prices now, I guess the math is harder if you already have the 70-200. Some even suggest just renting the 100-400 for the trip if you don't expect to use it in other circumstances.

Thank you all. I currently have the 17-40L, 28-135 (my major workhorse), and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. The later has not really impressed me which is why i have a little quandary. I am an enthusiast and love to shoot but do not have professional aspirations or budget. I am willing to pay for something that is worth the expense. I do think the 100-400 is NOT the right solution to BUY as i will have very limited use for it in the future. I could rent it but i really need a better lens with some reach. I really see two options. Both involve a 70-200. I can see selling both of my tele's and getting a 70-200. This is where i am stuck. As I said originally, this is all brought about by the upcoming safari so I need something real for that. I am torn between the 70-200 IS 2.8 (vers 1 or 2) with a 2XTC and a 70-200 IS 4 with a 2XTC. The second is certainly much cheaper especially if I compare it to the newer and well reviewed 2.8. As this new lens will certainly become a walk around lens for me, the very significant weight difference between the 2.8 and the 4 needs to be considered. Does anyone consider the 2.8 a walk around lens? I also have a 7D with really good low light shooting so I might be able to get by with only the f4. I have also read that when shooting long, one needs to stop down anyhow to get a reasonable DOF.
Any further comments are greatly appreciated.

You will lose AF capability with the f:4 where as you retain AF with the f:2.8 and a 2x TC.

I think nothing of using the f:2.8 or the 100-400 as a walk-around, but I am not most people.

So now you need to ask yourself are you comfortable manually focusing 400mm on a once in a lifetime (for most) photo trip?

Any Canon lens you decide to purchase for your trip can be sold when you return, expecting to recover 80% or more of your original investment. This can be viewed as renting it. And, it would still allow you to get the f:2.8 for the trip "swap it out" for a lens better suited to you usual needs.

--

I started in the 50's - my first picture was taken with a Leica and hooked me for life. I no longer use my Leicas, but I am still taking pictures. Some things never change.

I agree with the "renting" option.

For several years I have bought an extra body (alongside my 5D-I and later 5D-II) for those special safari trips, and selling them within weeks after the trip. It is cheaper than renting, and you get some extra time to learn the "controls". The buyer gets an almost new body, with very few shutter actuations, at a very interesting price, you as seller lose very little, and it is cheaper than renting for a couple of weeks.
You could do the same with lenses.

I had a 100-400 from 1999 until 2010, I sold it because it will be some time (several years) before I go on safari again. Until then I use 1.4x-II and 2.0x-II extenders on my old 70-200 2.8 IS mark I, only in those very rare occasions when I need the extra reach.

When going on safari again, I will see what is available and affordable, but it's very likely that I will buy a new 100-400 again. Or rent the 200-400?
Have a nice trip!

I used to have a 100-400 but replaced it with the 70-200 II when it was stolen.

Was very happy with the 100-400 untill I tried a 600 - yeah, I know, no comparison.

The problem with the 70-200 and 2X is that on safari, there is always (almost) lots of dust and you'll probably find that 200 is plenty most of the time so you'll be swapping the TC out quite often. Not only does this risk missing a shot, but you will get dust on the sensor!

It also depends on where you go on safari. Some places, you can usually get quite close - for the Kruger in South Africa, I don't often need much more than 200mm (except for birds of course) but there are other places where 400 is seldom enough. Find out what to expect where you are going.

Enjoy!

PS I like the idea of the 70-200 and the 400f5.6

There is one consideration that I don't think has been mentioned and that is dust. The 100-400, with its method of changing focal length, has a tendency to suck in dust. The 70-200 f2.8 Mk II is dust sealed. Since Africa is a dusty environment, this should be taken into account.

That being said I have done Africa with the 100-400 and the results were excellent. I have also done it with the 70-200 mentioned above. I don't feel there is any difference in quality. There is a difference in aperture selection though and wide open, the 100-400 selects the aperture depending on focal lenght, f4.5 to f5.6. I am not particularly a fan of this and much prefer the constant setting of f5.6 when the 70-200 has a 2X telextender attached.

Of course if you change out the 2X so that you have only the prime 70-200, here comes the dust.

Bottom line, go with what you like, what you can afford and what you can comfortably carry. There are pros and cons to each setup but the image quality will be so similar it is a tossup.

YMMV.