Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - or - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II

I plan to upgrade my excellent Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS to the even better Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Then enter the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.

I use a Canon 6D and sometimes my old 20D as a second camera for reach 112-320mm.

My lenses in order of use: 24-70f/2.8L II IS, 70-200/4L IS, 16-35f/4 IS

My photography is mainly of my family, street life, people, architecture, travel and vacations, 5-13y old kids, in/out doors sports and some wildlife.

Some times I really miss my Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L a very good lens but it really was not very convenient to use for my needs, it caused lots of lens changing, I wish it had IS and a lot shorter minimum focus distance than 11.5' / 3.5m. More reach than 200mm would be great but only occasionally.

Q1 - Browsing the net it is hard to find many user examples of family/kids/people taken at the 100mm short end of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II is this lens made mostly for 200-400mm birding and wildlife?

Q2 - Please post some of your photographs of family/kids/people taken at the 100mm short end of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.

Q3 - How well can the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II replace the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for mainly people/family/vacation use?

Hard choice, clearly two very good lenses.

Tapeman wrote:

I would consider getting the 100-400 before doing anything with your 70-200.

I own Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and recently got their new 100-400. I have not used my 70-200 much since.

It sounds like your style of shooting is similar to mine. You may find your f/4 70-200 a good fit with the 100-400.

Sorry, no pictures.

Thanks for your valuable input Tapeman! I use my 70-200 f/4 IS all the time along with a 24-70 F/2.8L II or 16-35 F/4L IS. Keeping my 70-200 f/4 IS and adding the new 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II is very tempting as it adds a lot of range in one lens.

ShortestPath wrote:

The two lenses you mention are very similar in size, weight, price and sharpness (excellent). The question is, would you rather have one more stop of aperture than your 70-200 f4 or a lot more reach?

Yes this is the hard question. Really, I am happy as is. I really do not need one more stop very often, nor do I need more reach very often.

I can se myself having a lot of fun with both these lenses. Which lens brings most use and fun to me and my family? Perhaps more reach beats one more stop.

Since you mention your typical use is people/family/vacation and that you would need the extra reach only occasionally, the 70-200 2.8 II seems like the better choice. Your 70-200 f4 should also work pretty well for that though, with a much more travel-friendly weight. May I ask you what made you think of upgrading in the first place?

Very good question!

I have used my 70-200 f/4 IS all the time since 2007 and I really love it, fast, small and sharp.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is even sharper than my 70-200 f/4 IS. It is also 2x the price and weight.

One reason for wanting one more stop is that my son plays tennis indoors in wintertime. ISOs are pushed to 3200-6400 or more. My son is not much into sports any more and it is likely he will stop playing tennis indoors very soon and then my primary need for a faster short tele lens goes away.

My other reasons wanting but not needing one stop more are:

• A faster shutter speed for freezing aktion, chasing kids running and sports.
• A f/2.8 lens makes my cameras AF works better and faster = a lot more keepers.
• It is essential in most low light situations in- and outdoors.
• For portraits with beautiful creamy bokeh. It adds more separation at all focal lengths
• I can use a lover ISO = Greater Dynamic range, less grain, better contrast, higher IQ.

As good as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is do I really need it? Perhaps it is better not to sell my 70-200 f/4 IS and add the new 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II?

ShortestPath wrote:

You made a pretty good case in favor of the 2.8 aperture, how about the extra range of the 100-400? What would that bring to the table for you? Personally I find I rarely need more than 200mm for people, while the additional light helps a lot... As a matter of fact I am about to replace my 70-300 L with a 70-200 2.8 II for this very reason, although I will probably end up getting something longer for wildlife as well.

You are absolutely right, I also very rarely need more than 200mm for people. The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II is for sure a great and fun lens to have but a lot speaks for first upgrading my Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS to the faster 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

I have tried to gather the facts so far:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II over Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II

• + MTF50 at f/2.8 all focal lengths exceeds 40 lpmm. At f/4.0 45-47 lpmm Extremely sharp!
• + 70-99mm for portraits with beautiful creamy bokeh and less changing to 24-70f/2.8L II.
• + 1,5-2 step faster shutter speed for freezing aktion, chasing kids running and sports.
• + 1,5-2 stop = lower ISOs = Greater Dynamic range, less grain, better contrast, higher IQ.
• + 1,5-2 stop more light is essential in all low light situations in- and outdoors.
• + 1,5-2 stop more separation at all focal lengths.
• + f/2.8 = Camera AF works better and faster = A lot more keepers.
• + Contant f/2.8.
• + Constant size = better balance and less dust gets sucked in to the lens when zooming.
• + Smaller in use constant 88.8x199mm.
• + 80g less weight 1490g with tripod collar/foot.
• + Remove the collar/foot to save some more weight.
• + Fully removable tripod collar/foot.
• - No 200-400 focal lengths.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II

• + MTF50 at f/4.5-5.6 focal lengths range from 39-42 lpmm
• + 200-400mm double the focal lengths adds uses like planes, wildlife and birds.
• + Shorter MDF Minimum Focus Distance focuses down to 980mm (38.4") MM is 0.31x!
• - Missing 70-99mm Less convenient especially for people photo at shorter distances.
• - Some minor but visible CA at 100-135mm.
• - Weight 1570g.
• - 94x193mm about equally in size retracted, becomes a lot longer at 150-400mm.
• - Only the small tripod foot is removable, collar stays on.
• - Some users reports of tripod foot getting loose and even falling off. Bad design?

Do you all agree on the above and have I missed something important?

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

I plan to upgrade my excellent Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS to the even better Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Then enter the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.

I use a Canon 6D and sometimes my old 20D as a second camera for reach 112-320mm.

My lenses in order of use: 24-70f/2.8L II IS, 70-200/4L IS, 16-35f/4 IS

My photography is mainly of my family, street life, people, architecture, travel and vacations, 5-13y old kids, in/out doors sports and some wildlife.

Some times I really miss my Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L a very good lens but it really was not very convenient to use for my needs, it caused lots of lens changing, I wish it had IS and a lot shorter minimum focus distance than 11.5' / 3.5m. More reach than 200mm would be great but only occasionally.

Q1 - Browsing the net it is hard to find many user examples of family/kids/people taken at the 100mm short end of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II is this lens made mostly for 200-400mm birding and wildlife?

Q2 - Please post some of your photographs of family/kids/people taken at the 100mm short end of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.

Q3 - How well can the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II replace the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for mainly people/family/vacation use?

Hard choice, clearly two very good lenses.

Hi Pietro,

I recently faced similar decision issues, as my subjects are the same as yours (except I don't do architecture or wildlife) and will share some of my conclusions that may help you. I considered the 100-400 II very seriously, as my kids play football (soccer), but ultimately decided on the 70-300L.

It would be nice to have a 2.8 telephoto lens, but one place I would use the 70-200 2.8L II, if I owned it, is to capture my kids in school performances - which are indoor, on stage with spot-lights at night. For these kind's of shots, I would rarely use 2.8 anyway, so that is one less reason for me, in case you are looking for reasons, to not need a 2.8 lens of this nature. It would be nice to have 2.8 for football (soccer), but 70-200mm is a bit short for that.

Q1 comment: the reason you don't find many of these photos is because most of these are taken in a house - and 100mm is too long for this - at least for me. I find my 50mm prime to be ideal for these kinds of shots. Unless I am doing only upper body shots, I find my 100mm prime to be too long for full body portraiture in my house - and I live in a fairly big house.

Q2 comment: I recently visited my local Canon facility, where I tested the 100-400 II. I can assure you that even in low light, the lens focused very accurately - despite it's slower aperture. I had some of my kids with me (my 4 year olds), and the IS worked well, but their lack of ability to sit still highlighted the 100-400 II's inability to capture motion in low light.

Q3 comment: I have read some photographers are making this replacement. I have not tried the 70-200 2.8L II, but I can tell you that despite my heart being set on the 100-400 II, I quickly decided it was way too heavy for me (a fairly fit man) to want to use much for anything other than mono-pod mounted football (soccer) matches of my 13 year old boys. Since both lenses are similar in size and weight, I would imagine I might come to the same conclusion on the 70-200 2.8L II.

I hope this helps,

bill

Pietro

I have both lenses: 70-200 F2.8 IS MKII and 100-400 MKII

70-200 F4 is a very good lens keep it and you can buy 100-400MKII for extra reach if BIF is of interest to you

IF not, or you need to recover some of the cost, sell the F4 and get the F2.8.

Bokeh is  much better at F2.8 compared for F4 especially for family

Be aware that 100-400 extends considerably and in public you will be very visible with a very white and long lens

(70-200 does not extend)

Weight is about the same.

Old Greenlander

sigxbill wrote:

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

I plan to upgrade my excellent Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS to the even better Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Then enter the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.

I use a Canon 6D and sometimes my old 20D as a second camera for reach 112-320mm.

My lenses in order of use: 24-70f/2.8L II IS, 70-200/4L IS, 16-35f/4 IS

My photography is mainly of my family, street life, people, architecture, travel and vacations, 5-13y old kids, in/out doors sports and some wildlife.

Some times I really miss my Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L a very good lens but it really was not very convenient to use for my needs, it caused lots of lens changing, I wish it had IS and a lot shorter minimum focus distance than 11.5' / 3.5m. More reach than 200mm would be great but only occasionally.

Q1 - Browsing the net it is hard to find many user examples of family/kids/people taken at the 100mm short end of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II is this lens made mostly for 200-400mm birding and wildlife?

Q2 - Please post some of your photographs of family/kids/people taken at the 100mm short end of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.

Q3 - How well can the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II replace the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for mainly people/family/vacation use?

Hard choice, clearly two very good lenses.

Hi Pietro,

I recently faced similar decision issues, as my subjects are the same as yours (except I don't do architecture or wildlife) and will share some of my conclusions that may help you. I considered the 100-400 II very seriously, as my kids play football (soccer), but ultimately decided on the 70-300L.

Yes the 70-300L is a very fine lens indeed, sharp, compact and only ca 300g more than the only slightly sharper 70-200L f4 IS.

It would be nice to have a 2.8 telephoto lens, but one place I would use the 70-200 2.8L II, if I owned it, is to capture my kids in school performances - which are indoor, on stage with spot-lights at night. For these kind's of shots, I would rarely use 2.8 anyway, so that is one less reason for me, in case you are looking for reasons, to not need a 2.8 lens of this nature. It would be nice to have 2.8 for football (soccer), but 70-200mm is a bit short for that.

My son changes sports and activities all the time it is impossible to know what will come up next term. I feel that this fast and sharp 2.8 tele zoom offers more advantages than usage in badly lit indoors situations. The only disadvantages I can find are price and weight.

Q1 comment: the reason you don't find many of these photos is because most of these are taken in a house - and 100mm is too long for this - at least for me. I find my 50mm prime to be ideal for these kinds of shots. Unless I am doing only upper body shots, I find my 100mm prime to be too long for full body portraiture in my house - and I live in a fairly big house.

I think you are right, and all that have the money to buy a 100-400L II most certainly also own a better lens to use inside a house. Many inexpensive primes like the 35f/2.0 IS the 50f/1.8 are perfect for this. But still, why so very few photos of people, street life and photos from vacations outside at 100-150mm with this lens? Is it mainly used for BIF and wildlife at 200-400mm?

Q2 comment: I recently visited my local Canon facility, where I tested the 100-400 II. I can assure you that even in low light, the lens focused very accurately - despite it's slower aperture. I had some of my kids with me (my 4 year olds), and the IS worked well, but their lack of ability to sit still highlighted the 100-400 II's inability to capture motion in low light.

If I buy the 100-400L II I want to use all the 100-400 range from closeups, portraits, people, events to 400mm for the odd wildlife and BIF. In essence when I need more reach than my 24-70f/2.8 II has for: Family, vacations, people, school events, kid sports and some occasional BIF & wildlife too.

Q3 comment: I have read some photographers are making this replacement. I have not tried the 70-200 2.8L II, but I can tell you that despite my heart being set on the 100-400 II, I quickly decided it was way too heavy for me (a fairly fit man) to want to use much for anything other than mono-pod mounted football (soccer) matches of my 13 year old boys. Since both lenses are similar in size and weight, I would imagine I might come to the same conclusion on the 70-200 2.8L II.

I tried the 70-200L f/2.8L IS when it was introduced, it was way to expensive for me at the time. The 2x weight was also a minus helping me to forget about upgrading.

I hope this helps,

bill

Thanks for your help Bill!

Old Greenlander wrote:

Pietro

I have both lenses: 70-200 F2.8 IS MKII and 100-400 MKII

70-200 F4 is a very good lens keep it and you can buy 100-400MKII for extra reach if BIF is of interest to you

IF not, or you need to recover some of the cost, sell the F4 and get the F2.8.

Bokeh is much better at F2.8 compared for F4 especially for family

Be aware that 100-400 extends considerably and in public you will be very visible with a very white and long lens

(70-200 does not extend)

Weight is about the same.

Old Greenlander

Old Greenlander,

Wildlife and BIF is of some interest to me but family photos comes first. I live by the Baltic sea near Stockholm and there is a lot of wildlife and birds even coming up to or flying over my house. To name a few: Fox (Vulpes vulpes), Roe Deer (Capreoulus capreolus), Moose (Alces alces), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea), (rare) Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and lots more.

My main use for tele is my photos of family and vacations all over the world. 24-70 + 70-200 is perfect for people and covers 80-90% of my real needs. For people and family I mostly use the short to mid end 70-135mm. When using 200mm it is often for wildlife or birds and 200mm is mostly not enough. I have owned 70-300mm zooms and same thing here, even 300mm is to short for most wildlife and especially for small birds. I have also owned a EF 400f/5.6L very sharp and fun to use. But no IS and only 400mm was impractical for me.

Ideal is perhaps to own both a 70-200f/2.8L IS II for people and family and a 100-400f/4.5-5.6L II for wildlife and birds. A whole lot of money for a hobby.

Another alternative is to keep my 70-200f/4L IS and add the 100-400f/4.5-5.6L II first.

My wife wisely suggests to put most money in to the focal lengths I use the most.

Some people have found that the 2.8 70-200 with tele extenders give results similar to the 100-400 mkII (which I own and really like). Just thought I'd add another consideration to your process.

Pietro.

First off, it sounds like a question of which you First.

A little history on me. My first "L" lens was the 100-400 L IS version 1. In 2008, I actually acquired this as a barter from my old business not related to Photography. One of the advantages of both parties being self employed. Once you have an L lens you are hooked. Having 100-400 range I was able to capture images that were not possible. I'm sold. Soon after, the 24-105 made its way into the bag.

Then I stated to get the 70-200 IS bug. In the summer of 2009, the choices were the f/2.8 Version 1 and the newer f/4 L IS that was outperforming the f/2.8 IS in terms of image quality and improved IS. Plus the f/4 L IS was half the weight and almost half the price. Plus there were rumors of an f/2.8 on the horizon. So I bought the f/4 L IS. Great results were captured in this smaller lighter lens. I knew I could always sell or trade in the f/4 L IS toards a new 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II down the road. Another 18 months Down the Road it was time to invest in the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. Weight not being a concern at the time as I was able to get that addition stop of light with slightly improved optics. So the f/4 sat at home as I decided when I was going to unload it. It sat and sat in the corner waiting to see the light of day.

One day when the shoulder was acting up, I  decided I was going to use the trusty f/4 L IS as I was going to be walking all day and wanted to lighten the load. Since my old business was supplying the Physical Therapy industry, why put my body through the additional stress when I had a solution. Sure glad I had the f/4 on reserve that day as shooting f/2.8 was not necessary.

To this day 5 years later, I still use both the f/4 L IS and the f/2.8 Mark II. Obviously the choice to keep both has paid off for me personally.

My recommendation to your question is to go after the new 100-400 Version II as it allows you more areas of Photography than the same range with one additional stop of light.

I am really looking to upgrade 100-400 to the new Mark II. Everything I am hearing is that the upgrade is well worth it.

flbrit wrote:

Some people have found that the 2.8 70-200 with tele extenders give results similar to the 100-400 mkII (which I own and really like). Just thought I'd add another consideration to your process.

Thanks flbrit!

I found this very short review https://youtu.be/n9zWpihW8IE by Tony Northrup some time ago and the thought of having the best short tele and adding a 2X III extender only when really needing 400mm is quite tempting.Saving a whole lot of space, weight and money.

Some comments below the youtube review of this combo tells that it work very well for casual use others says it produces soft images, introduces CA and AF becomes really slow only working for slow to stationary targets in good light. Forget Eagles i flight but OK for ducks and lager animals?

Q1 - Even if resolution holds up and is still OK at 400mm, how does it really compare to the new 100-400 II or my old (sold) 400/5.6L prime?

Q2 - I am sure AF speed, contrast, CA and general IQ is also degraded, question is by how much?

Q3 - Can you post or point me to examples of this combo perhaps on Flicker?

Thanks for reminding me of this possibility!

Nick5 wrote:

Pietro.

First off, it sounds like a question of which you First.

A little history on me. My first "L" lens was the 100-400 L IS version 1. In 2008, I actually acquired this as a barter from my old business not related to Photography. One of the advantages of both parties being self employed. Once you have an L lens you are hooked. Having 100-400 range I was able to capture images that were not possible. I'm sold. Soon after, the 24-105 made its way into the bag.

Then I stated to get the 70-200 IS bug. In the summer of 2009, the choices were the f/2.8 Version 1 and the newer f/4 L IS that was outperforming the f/2.8 IS in terms of image quality and improved IS. Plus the f/4 L IS was half the weight and almost half the price. Plus there were rumors of an f/2.8 on the horizon. So I bought the f/4 L IS. Great results were captured in this smaller lighter lens. I knew I could always sell or trade in the f/4 L IS toards a new 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II down the road. Another 18 months Down the Road it was time to invest in the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. Weight not being a concern at the time as I was able to get that addition stop of light with slightly improved optics. So the f/4 sat at home as I decided when I was going to unload it. It sat and sat in the corner waiting to see the light of day.

One day when the shoulder was acting up, I decided I was going to use the trusty f/4 L IS as I was going to be walking all day and wanted to lighten the load. Since my old business was supplying the Physical Therapy industry, why put my body through the additional stress when I had a solution. Sure glad I had the f/4 on reserve that day as shooting f/2.8 was not necessary.

To this day 5 years later, I still use both the f/4 L IS and the f/2.8 Mark II. Obviously the choice to keep both has paid off for me personally.

My recommendation to your question is to go after the new 100-400 Version II as it allows you more areas of Photography than the same range with one additional stop of light.

I am really looking to upgrade 100-400 to the new Mark II. Everything I am hearing is that the upgrade is well worth it.

Thanks Nick5!

My "need" for the 70-200f/2.8L II has grown year by year, but it is perhaps really more of a "desire" to have the best short tele because I use it a lot, even on vacations. Only my 24-70f/2.8L II gets used more.

Now that my son might soon stop playing tennis indoors, perhaps I should just keep my trusty 70-200f/4L IS and add the new 100-400f/4.5-5.6L II?

Have you used/tried a 2X extender on your 70-200f/2.8L II?

Any examples of your current 100-400mm on Flicker?

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

ShortestPath wrote:

The two lenses you mention are very similar in size, weight, price and sharpness (excellent). The question is, would you rather have one more stop of aperture than your 70-200 f4 or a lot more reach?

Yes this is the hard question. Really, I am happy as is. I really do not need one more stop very often, nor do I need more reach very often.

I can se myself having a lot of fun with both these lenses. Which lens brings most use and fun to me and my family? Perhaps more reach beats one more stop.

I can understand adding new lenses to achieve more fun but still not seeing what fun you are going for.  The 100-400 is nice for wildlife and BIF. Do you shoot these?  The only other use I have found for my 100-400 for was high school baseball, so daylight sports on a larger field is another use if your kids plan to play that.  If you can get by with 280mm the 70-200 f/4IS reportedly handles 1.4x teleconverters well.

Since you mention your typical use is people/family/vacation and that you would need the extra reach only occasionally, the 70-200 2.8 II seems like the better choice. Your 70-200 f4 should also work pretty well for that though, with a much more travel-friendly weight. May I ask you what made you think of upgrading in the first place?

Very good question!

I have used my 70-200 f/4 IS all the time since 2007 and I really love it, fast, small and sharp.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is even sharper than my 70-200 f/4 IS. It is also 2x the price and weight.

I have used my 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-200 2.8 IS II for years and the IQ is so close I can't make a definitive call that the 2.8II is the sharper one.  Both are fantastic.

One reason for wanting one more stop is that my son plays tennis indoors in wintertime. ISOs are pushed to 3200-6400 or more. My son is not much into sports any more and it is likely he will stop playing tennis indoors very soon and then my primary need for a faster short tele lens goes away.

Assuming you are using your 6D for the tennis and not a crop, doesn't the 6D and the 70-200 f/4 handle 3200-6400 ISO well?  I shot high school basketball games with my 5DIII using my f/4 instead of my 2.8II just to see how it went and in these not-too-well-lit gyms with ISOs at 6400 and slightly higher the results were pretty good.  You also say your son is not likely to continue.

My other reasons wanting but not needing one stop more are:

• A faster shutter speed for freezing aktion, chasing kids running and sports.
• A f/2.8 lens makes my cameras AF works better and faster = a lot more keepers.
• It is essential in most low light situations in- and outdoors.
• For portraits with beautiful creamy bokeh. It adds more separation at all focal lengths
• I can use a lover ISO = Greater Dynamic range, less grain, better contrast, higher IQ.

Unless it is chasing kids and fast action in poorly lit indoors the 6D and f/4 should work.

The 2.8 may work better for AF however, I never had problems in this area with the f/4 70-200 IS on my 60D or 5DIII; haven't used it on my 6D enough yet to opine.

One stop is always nice but only time I ever found it essential was in shooting volleyball in poorly lit gyms (and sometimes 2.8 was even iffy).

Until I got the 2.8II I used the f4 IS 70-200 for portraits and it does a nice job.

Lower ISO is of course good if you find yourself light challenged enough when using your 70-200 f/4.  Of course the other option you are considering is slower still.

As good as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is do I really need it? Perhaps it is better not to sell my 70-200 f/4 IS and add the new 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II?

Sorry but you have a nice set of glass now and I'm not seeing where they are letting you down.  I'm afraid I am not seeing you really need either lens.  Of course this is coming from me, who has bought a number of lenses which it turned out I could have done without.  The pull of getting new stuff can be pretty strong.  Just my thoughts.

-- hide signature --

Best Regards
Pietro M
Stockholm

Pietro.

I have the 1.4 EX III Extender. Coupled with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II my lens is now f/4 throughout. Pairing the 2X Extender that lens is now f/5.6. Of course the focal length does increase accordingly. I do not have the 2X. Many have claimed 1.4 x produces better images. Do either Extenders  replace my 100-400, No. Does it have a place in my kit......Yes Sir.

I do not own the 100-400 Mark II, only the older Dust Pump.

I own both of these excellent lenses, however, they are unique and each has distinct uses and advantages. The 70-200f2.8II + 2TCIII will never be as good as the bare 100-400II at 400mm.

Ken

ShortestPath wrote:

I would take that with a grain, actually a sack, of salt. The two lenses are in a similar league regarding image quality, so how could the 70-200 w/2x TC be *still* as good as the bare 100-400? At the long end the 100-400 actually has better MTF than the 70-200 without TC! All that test proves is that you can't judge two lenses just by taking a few handheld shots and eyeballing the results, not even if you are Tony Northrup.

Thanks, I suspected this, using 2X extenders degrades even stellar lenses.

I don't want to knock down the 70-200 (I'd be the last person to do so, I just bought it...), but every lens has its limitations, only you can decide which one is best for your use. For objective IQ comparisons you're better off using tools like the ones on TDP. For reference:

70-200 vs 100-400 MTF comparison at the long end http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=687&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=972&FLIComp=2&CT=AVG

70-200 w/2x TC vs 100-400: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

Thanks for this, facts are facts.

Both lenses are top performers, but made for different uses.