Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Been spending a lot of time on here!
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    151
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    3 times

    canon 70-200 2.8 is II with 2x tc vs 400 5.6

    I am planning on buying a lens setup for up to 400mm within the next couple weeks and i ran into a little dilemma. I had my heart set on 400mm 5.6 until i ran across rave reviews about the 70-200 2.8 is II with the newest 2x tc. Everyone seems to love it including arthur morris, and recommends it over the 100-400, but I haven't seen it much compared to 400 5.6. Since i already own the 70-200 2.8 non is, I could sell it to make up the difference in price between the two. If anyone could show me 400mm test shots of both, I would be able to make up my mind.



  2. #2
    I spend too much of my life on TPF!
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Manila Philippines
    Posts
    547
    My Gallery
    (20)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    80 times
    +1000 points for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Its the best telezoom lens in the planet. Wish I have the money to buy one. Regarding the 400mm, I found the 300mm IS a lot better. The IS allows it to be used even hand held
    If your photo received good comments from Manaheim, Kundalini, and Bitter Jeweler, you have leveled up...

  3. #3
    Been spending a lot of time on here!
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    151
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    3 times
    I ruled out the 300 for the slower focus compared to the 400 5.6 along with the fact that the lens would probably be tripod mounted or on a beanbag the majority of the time.

  4. #4
    has a hat around here somewhere Site Moderator
    TPF Supporter

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UK - England
    Posts
    19,794
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    2497 times
    The 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 is a fantastic lens and fantastic enough that it can take a 2*TC and get a 140-400mm L lens. However its raw image quality is only on par with the 100-400mm lens (the two are pretty much identical, with the 100-400mm only showing up a slight advantage in test shots, in teh field you can't tell them apart). and the 400mm f5.6 is far sharper than the 100-400mm at the 400mm mark.

    I don't have any to hand but there are a good few reviews google and throw up for comparisions between the 100-400mm and the 400mm f5.6

    In short you've got to decide - do you want a prime or a zoom lens - both are top of the range options (for their price point) and both work to a pro level. If you want prime the 400mm is the best to go for - if you want a zoom then the 70-200mm gives you not only an outstanding 70-200mm but also the pro quality of a 140-400mm zoom lens.

  5. #5
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield UK
    Posts
    12,379
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    1798 times
    The 70-200 and 2x will not match the 400, but without the 2x you have F2.8 which is great when it gets dark

  6. #6
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Goondocks
    Posts
    1,684
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    203 times
    It will not match the 400mm. I used to have the 70-200 Mark I and the 2x extender and while it was alright, I didn't realize how terrible it was at 400mm until I got the 400mm 5.6. Now granted the mark II 70-200 is a bit sharper, there is still no way it will be as sharp once you slap that 2x extender on. Some people tout the 300mm f/4 because it has the IS feature and you can put a 1.4x extender on it and ratain AF, but if you want distance, you will never be satisfied with only 300mm, plus once you slap the 1.4x extender on it, you lose quality as well. The 400mm is decent for hand holding if you have decent light and decent ISO capabilities. Its well balanced and fairly light for its size. I would keep your non-IS 70-200 and get a 400mm 5.6.It would be a lot cheaper that way. The other suprising thing is that the 400mm is like 13 years old or something with out an update, yet they still fetch about 75% of their current new price on ebay. So even if you sold it down the road, you could probably get some decent coin for it.

  7. #7
    has a hat around here somewhere Site Moderator
    TPF Supporter

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UK - England
    Posts
    19,794
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    2497 times
    Just to counter a little the M2 version of the lens isn't just a bit better, with the 2*TC is a heck of a lot better:

    Photos (with 100% crops) from the original 70-200mm f2.8 IS L + 2*TC
    little birds photos test - a set on Flickr

    Photos (with 100% crops) from the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 + 2*TC
    70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 test - a set on Flickr
    Minsmere - a set on Flickr

    Just to note that I used the first combo about 3 or 4 times the whole time I owned the lens, it just didn't perform fantastically, good in a pinch but not ideal. The new version I'm quiet happy to leave the 2*TC on the lens as long as I need the reach without any worries at all.

    Remember its not beating the 400mm f5.6, that is worlds sharper, but I consider the new lens to give a very suitable and usable level of image quality

  8. #8
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Goondocks
    Posts
    1,684
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    203 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Overread View Post
    Just to counter a little the M2 version of the lens isn't just a bit better, with the 2*TC is a heck of a lot better:

    Photos (with 100% crops) from the original 70-200mm f2.8 IS L + 2*TC
    little birds photos test - a set on Flickr

    Photos (with 100% crops) from the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 + 2*TC
    70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 test - a set on Flickr
    Minsmere - a set on Flickr

    Just to note that I used the first combo about 3 or 4 times the whole time I owned the lens, it just didn't perform fantastically, good in a pinch but not ideal. The new version I'm quiet happy to leave the 2*TC on the lens as long as I need the reach without any worries at all.

    Remember its not beating the 400mm f5.6, that is worlds sharper, but I consider the new lens to give a very suitable and usable level of image quality
    Fair enough, but the point still stands, that its not going to be as good as the 400mm 5.6. Now if the OP didn't already have a 70-200, then I would advise the combo he was considering because frankly I think the 70-200 is a much more versatile lens and gets used much more ( atleast mine does. ).

  9. #9
    Been spending a lot of time on here!
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    151
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    3 times
    Thanks for the responses. Looks like i'm just going to stick with the the 400mm prime. I have no doubts that I will love it

  10. #10
    Been spending a lot of time on here!
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    175
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    You will love the 400mm. My experience with it was limited (rented it for a week) but I had a lot of fun with it and plan to get it when I have the $$.
    My Gallery
    Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT, EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM.
    Canon EOS 50D, EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6


 

 

Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-22-2011, 07:54 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-26-2010, 09:12 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-04-2009, 01:33 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 04:45 PM

Search tags for this page

100-400 vs 70-200 w 2xtc
,

70-200 f2.8l ii 2x tc @140-200mm vs no tc

,

70-200 vs 400mm

,

arthur morris review canon 400mm f5.6l

,

canon 400 mm 5.6 vs 70-200 2.8

,

canon 70-200 2.8 ii w/2x review

,
canon 70-200 f2.8 and 400mm f5.6 spec
,

canon 70-200 f2.8 with 2x extender

,
canon 70-200 f2.8 with 2x extender vs 400mm f5.6l
,

converters on canon 400 5.6

Click on a term to search for related topics.