can you post a photo with that combo for us to see how good is it, please?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is the 70-200/2.8 IS II with a TC 2x III better than the 100-400 II?
- Thread starter WilbaW
- Start date
Jack Cat
Well-known member
This is a pretty heavy crop.
I am certainly not claiming the 70-200mm f/2.8 II & 2xIII combo is better than either version of the 100-400mm. I do not have either one. However, it can give satisfactory results under good conditions.
Gary S
Veteran Member
Two crops, the 100-400 II is on the right.
They're pretty darn close in the center, but not when you move away from the center. For some people that's not important. For others it is. Some like to do compressed landscapes with telephoto lenses. Sharpness across the frame matters then.
The 100-400 II takes a 1.4x converter very nicely with certain cameras to give you 560mm. I've done it a lot, it looks good. The 70-200 of course has the f2.8 aperture which is nearly indispensable for some photography. I guess you could inter-change them, but to me they're two different tools.
They're pretty darn close in the center, but not when you move away from the center. For some people that's not important. For others it is. Some like to do compressed landscapes with telephoto lenses. Sharpness across the frame matters then.
The 100-400 II takes a 1.4x converter very nicely with certain cameras to give you 560mm. I've done it a lot, it looks good. The 70-200 of course has the f2.8 aperture which is nearly indispensable for some photography. I guess you could inter-change them, but to me they're two different tools.
Jack, thank you so much for posting, the photos look good, although they demonstrate noise from over-sharpening! i still think the new 100-400II with native f4.5-5.6 is better that 70-200 f2.8II+tc 2.0xIII, IMO.
regards.
regards.
Gar, you haven't clarified what is on the left? if it is a 70-200 f2.8+tc 2.0xIII, then the difference is significant compared to bare 100-400II. thanks for posting!Two crops, the 100-400 II is on the right.
They're pretty darn close in the center, but not when you move away from the center. For some people that's not important. For others it is. Some like to do compressed landscapes with telephoto lenses. Sharpness across the frame matters then.
The 100-400 II takes a 1.4x converter very nicely with certain cameras to give you 560mm. I've done it a lot, it looks good. The 70-200 of course has the f2.8 aperture which is nearly indispensable for some photography. I guess you could inter-change them, but to me they're two different tools.
Jack Cat
Well-known member
Noise from over sharpening? I don't think so. Maybe you see artifacts from a tiff to jpeg conversion shoehorned into dpreview. I was never trying to make an argument that the combo was better than either version of the 100-400.
Last edited:
fair enough, Jack ;-)
bhollis
Senior Member
See here.Gar, you haven't clarified what is on the left? if it is a 70-200 f2.8+tc 2.0xIII, then the difference is significant compared to bare 100-400II. thanks for posting!Two crops, the 100-400 II is on the right.
They're pretty darn close in the center, but not when you move away from the center. For some people that's not important. For others it is. Some like to do compressed landscapes with telephoto lenses. Sharpness across the frame matters then.
The 100-400 II takes a 1.4x converter very nicely with certain cameras to give you 560mm. I've done it a lot, it looks good. The 70-200 of course has the f2.8 aperture which is nearly indispensable for some photography. I guess you could inter-change them, but to me they're two different tools.
Loading…
www.the-digital-picture.com
Last edited:
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
I'm sure everyone is grateful to you for taking the trouble to post your pictures, which are excellent, but they are heavily processed and it turns the noise into a strong texture. When I have to process an image as much as that - and I'm not denying it does happen! - it's because it wasn't truly sharp to begin with. I wouldn't normally make an issue of it, but it is very relevant to the assessment of whether the combination is sharp.
the photo to right looks considerably sharper than to the left on my laptop!See here.Gar, you haven't clarified what is on the left? if it is a 70-200 f2.8+tc 2.0xIII, then the difference is significant compared to bare 100-400II. thanks for posting!Two crops, the 100-400 II is on the right.
They're pretty darn close in the center, but not when you move away from the center. For some people that's not important. For others it is. Some like to do compressed landscapes with telephoto lenses. Sharpness across the frame matters then.
The 100-400 II takes a 1.4x converter very nicely with certain cameras to give you 560mm. I've done it a lot, it looks good. The 70-200 of course has the f2.8 aperture which is nearly indispensable for some photography. I guess you could inter-change them, but to me they're two different tools.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
Gary S
Veteran Member
Yes that's correct. The left crop is the 70-200 f2.8 II + 2X III.
I have the 2X III, mostly used on my 300 f2.8 IS. That was my "poor man's" 600mm and often used for Surfing photos. It's been sitting at home since getting the 100-400 II for my 7D II. I often use it with the 1.4x II which only degrades the IQ by just a small amount. Barely even noticeable. And the focus speed still seems very quick. Better than my 300 f2.8 + 2x III.
interesting, i just got my 100-400II just a week ago and have been playing with the whole time. it sure is a sharp lens by itself but not using tc, though. i will continue to play with it until i get to know its idiosyncrasies. but i find a perfect lens for outing and travel. it should be fun to play with ;-) my canon 300 f2.8II takes TC 2.0xIII rather nicely but not as good as bear! there shouldn't be a problem using TC 1.4xIII with it, though! thanks for clarifying my question.
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
I use my 300/2.8 + 2x much less since getting the 100-400L II, but that's no surprise - a major reason for wanting it was so I didn't have to carry the big lens quite so often.
Optically it's great, but don't you find being limited to centre point (with assist) a problem? Or were you using that anyway?
You're a pedant....so don't expect everyone to flow with your tunes. Also, many people know what "ex" means when they see 1.4x or 2x, etc. Your basic point is simply untrue.
WilbaW
Forum Pro
I hang between boobs? Okay.
Good thing I didn't tell anyone what they have to think, eh?
You're right, many don't.
Oh, sorry, I do have great confidence in Tony Northrup. My mistake.
Last edited:
Gary S
Veteran Member
Yes, a portion of the time. I do activate the four-point expansion at times, but not having the flexibility of the full AF system is certainly limiting. A trade-off like many other things I guess.
You have to consider what the alternatives are, whether or not you like some of them, and just how much money you want to spend.
If I plan to shoot some BIF then I always leave that 1.4x off. Too difficult with only the center point.
As a telephoto zoom lens which can use the 1.4x well at times for extra reach, it's a really nice choice. It's popularity is not surprising. Some of the stores sell out stock pretty quickly after they get them.
Last edited:
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
Absolutely. I have the option of using my 300/2.8L II with 2x, but while that gives me all the AF options it focuses slower than the bare 100-400L II. I haven't attempted to test it against the 100-400 with 1.4x.
Also I have the option of buying a 500/4 or 600/4 but apart from the not inconsiderable cost I don't want to carry a lens of that size. In the first two years plus of ownership of the 300/2.8 I have never doubted it was the right choice, but interestingly the 100-400L II is making me revisit that decision. I'm now much less likely to carry the 300 for long distances, and much less likely to use it for closer subjects (where MFD is an issue). I'm more likely to take it to a location and use it there, maybe on a tripod with a gimbal head. So perhaps the balance is shifting towards the 500 or even 600 being viable? I don't know and I won't be rushing into anything, but maybe.
mahidoes
Senior Member
Typically Direct lenses are always sharper than the ones with the teleconvs.
Last edited:
WilbaW
Forum Pro
Not necessarily. It's easy to show that adding a good TC can give a better real world image than cropping a shot from the naked lens, all other things being equal (but of course, all other things rarely are equal).
check the-digital-picture comparations:Tony Northrup says so. Anyone with experience with that gear care to comment, especially about the AF speed and accuracy?
Anyone tried the 70-200 with both the 2 and 1.4 compared to the 100-400 with the 1.4? (I know that makes f/8, and yes, I can PD AF with that.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum