100-400L or 70-200L F2.8 with 2x III

Started May 22, 2012 | Discussions thread
Gravi Senior Member • Posts: 1,535
having used all combinations...

I concluded the following:

if you consinder the 70-200 f2.8 or the 70-200 f2.8 IS (instead of the newer more expensive 70-200 f2.8 IS II) the by all means, go 100-400. No competition there.

If you consider the 70-200 f2.8 IS II, with the TC 2x II or III, then the differenence in IQ is not that big at 400mm. The difference between samples of the same lense (sample variation) is what is most important in deciding on a winner when comparing center sharpness.

Corner sharpness is better on the 100-400 at 400mm.

Both 400mm options benefit from stopping down to f/8. At f/8 they deliver good results.

At lower focal lengths (350mm and lower) the 100-400 usually is sharper at f5.6.

The 70-200 does give you the option to have a shorter f2.8 lens. The 100-400 does not.

The 100-400 is easier to handle, lighter and better balanced on your camera. Putting the extender on the 70-200 makes it quite bulky.

AF is the biggest difference. AF of the 70-200 + extender is much much slower than that of the 100-400.

Bottom line: if you want a 70-200, adding the 2x extender will give you a good 400mm alternative, as long as BIF (fast AF) is not your main priority.

If 400mm and BIF are your prioirity, then go for the 100-400, it is the cheaper, lighter and much more portable option.

Or get a 400mm f5.6 prime tele. It is a sharp and fast focussing lens!

jumpingjack wrote:

Putting the benefit of theextra stops on the F2.8 to one side, what will give the better IQ at equivalent settings?

This will be for Airshow and Nature photography on a 60D.

-- hide signature --


Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow