EF 100-400 II vs. EF 70-200 f2.8 III + 2x ext

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
OP MirceaG Junior Member • Posts: 30
Re: To: MirceaG - followup reply...

Very nice pics, Marco - especially the Moon with Jupiter (+moons) composite. I also truly appreciate the wealth of information you shared. Very kind of you.

I'm an amateur (at best). I shoot mostly landscape but would like to dip my toes into other areas. In the telephoto category, I currently have a 70-200 f4 L IS which I really like for it's quality of pictures and weight. I tested it against a friend's 70-200 f2.8 II and at f8 there was no difference (as expected).

I've had a few situations where I wish I could go down to f2.8 or go above 280mm, which the 1.4x III extender I already have allows me to do, so my thinking is that if I get a 70-200 f2.8 and a 2x III extender I can have it both ways: f2.8 up to 200mm and up to 400mm at f5.6 (with the 2x extender) - same as 100-400. The weight, which is important to me, and the cost would not be much higher than going with the 100-400. I agree that using the 100-400 with extenders would give me even more reach but until I saw your pictures I didn't think there would be much use of it.

My question is how would a 70-200 f2.8 at 400mm (with 2x III) compare with 100-400 (with no extenders) in terms of quality of the picture. I read on the-digital-picture <dot> com that the 100-400 is better but they did not elaborate. The more I read about this, the more I realize that you cannot have it both ways. 70-200 f2.8 is good for low light, 100-400 gives you extra reach and flexibility and my current 70-200 f4 beats both at portability (weight). So, like in most cases you have to decide what really matters.

Thanks again for all the effort you put in answering my question.

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