200 f2.8 + 2x vs 300 f4 IS +1.4x

[JustinF]

I’m looking to get a long prime to supplement my 70-300 DO. I find that I use the long end most often and want to get to 400mm relatively cheaply while still being as versatile as possible. I had the 70-200 L IS and found it a little to heavy to carry often so I sold it for the DO. I have the Tamron 1.4x TC (MC-4 cheapy) and it is pretty slow on the DO. I am thinking about getting:

200 f2.8 L + Canon or Kenko (300 Pro) 2x TC
659.95 + (259.95 or 214.95) – 25 rebate = ($849.90 - 924.90)

or

300 f4 L IS
1149.95 – 45 rebate = $1104.95

That’s only a $180 difference. The price is even closer because I would need to buy a 72mm CP for the 200 and I already own a 77mm CP for the 300.

I have seen some surprisingly good reviews of the 200 with 2x TCs, some surprisingly poor reviews of the 300 with 1.4x TCs, and no reviews comparing them. The 300 is a pound lighter than the 70-200 IS I sold, and is reportedly less front heavy, so I don’t expect that to be as big of a problem. The 200 is smaller, lighter, black, and gives me three usable focal lengths. The 300 is a bit less versatile but has IS (a good thing at 420mm). I would consider the 400 5.6 but I would like to overlap my 70-300 DO for lower light conditions and when I want a really sharp image.

Which is sharper the 200 L f2.8 + a really good 2x TC or the 300 L IS f4 + a 1.4x TC? Assuming the price difference was not as big a deal as the quality — which would be a better setup for overall versatility and usability?

 

[Lars Johnsson]

If you like to shoot at 400 buy the the 400/5,6 lens.

And the 300/4 + 1,4 is sharper and better than the 200/2,8 + 2X tc

 

[misha]

If you like to shoot at 400 buy the the 400/5,6 lens.

And the 300/4 + 1,4 is sharper and better than the 200/2,8 + 2X tc

That's what I think too. I am not that happy about the sharpness from the 200 plus 2x (compared with just the 200).
--
Misha

 

[gasrocks]

If you ask around, you'll find that the 300/4 L IS + 1.4x is one of the most often used combinations out there.

 

[JustinF]

Thanks for your recommendations. I have seen so many reviews of how bad the 300 f4 (IS model) is with a 1.4x TC that I thought maybe the 200 would give similar results and give me more lens options. There are a bunch of posts right now about how good the 200 L is with a 2x TC. I can’t justify the 400 L because it limits me to using only my DO from 70-300. The DO serves it purpose (I think it’s great lens) but could be faster and a bit sharper. I just want to have a better option in that range and a bit more reach.

 

[Lee Jay]

Look here:
http://www.pbase.com/drip/image/42148952/original

and here:
http://www.pbase.com/drip/image/23823477/original

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[JustinF]

Wow — from the first test the 200 f2.8 + 1.4x looks sharper than the 300 f4 IS naked. The second test seems to show that the 200 f2.8 + 1.4x is sharper than the 135 f2 + 2x and that the 200 f2.8 + 2x is only slightly less sharp than the Bigma (50-500mm) at that distance. All of this is very surprising to me and makes the 200 look pretty good. It is only one test however. Thanks for the examples.

 

[JustinF]

Sorry — I referred to the links in the wrong order.

 

[misha]

I'd say in these samples the 200+1.4x acquits itself well, but 200+2x does not look good.
--
Misha

 

[Lee Jay]

I would be more inclined to say the 200+1.4 is about equal to the 300/4 and the 135/2+1.4 is about equal (perhaps a little better) to the 200/2.8 bare.

Considering the 300/4 is longer and has IS, I'd go for the 300 easily over the 200/2.8 + 1.4. Likewise for the 300+1.4 over the 200+2x. It's pretty hard to handhold in all but the best conditions at 420mm.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[forp]

So many tests have shown the 300IS loses a lot
of its sharpness with a TC including this newer one
from Photozone
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm

but the 300 non-IS is remarkably sharp with the 1.4x TC.
Photozone also did a recent test of that lens
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4/index.htm

The 300 non-IS with a 1.4x TC is much sharper than the 300IS with
1.4x TC according to these tests and many others. The 300 non-IS
with 1.4x TC is nearly as sharp as the 400/5.6 on a 1.6 crop (Rebel XT)
according to Photozone...and that's pretty sharp!
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_400_56/index.htm

The 300 non-IS can be found used for between $600 (seen one at this
price once) and $900. No IS but if you use a monopod, tripod or keep
your shutter speed to 1/f, you get a very sharp lens for less.

 

[mmep]

Which is sharper the 200 L f2.8 + a really good 2x TC or the 300 L
IS f4 + a 1.4x TC? Assuming the price difference was not as big a
deal as the quality — which would be a better setup for overall
versatility and usability?

I have the kenko Pro DG 2x and the only thing that I find difficult is birds in flight with the combo, but I think it's poor technique rather than limitations of the lens and TC, though the AF is noticeably slower (but accurate).

I have toyed with the idea of selling them and getting the 300 f/4 or 400 f5.6 as I have the Canon 1.4x too, but I can handhold the 200 very easily and I don't know if I could do the same with the other primes. The other thing is I have stacked the 1.4x and 2x on the lens and gotten usable shots, and the combo still auto focuses on my 20D. I can even use AI Servo.

I probably wouldn't trade in mine until I'd rented a 300 or 400mm to make sure it would be something I could use easily -- maybe renting is an option for you before deciding?

Cheryl