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

Started Oct 29, 2012 | Discussions thread
bhollis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,424
Re: Why not get a 70-200/2.8II and a 2xTC?

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.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow