Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS w/ 2x ext VS Canon 100-400 IS?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by keith204, May 28, 2008.

  1. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Any input would be appreciated. I'm trying to decide if I should get a Canon 2x extender now, or save up for a Canon 100-400.
     
  2. usayit

    usayit No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,523
    Likes Received:
    344
    Location:
    North New Jersey, United States of America
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The 100-400L is better than the 70-200L with 2x teleconverter. It does ~not~ mean that the teleconverter combination is bad and requires you to carry both.

    If your shooting habits require fast apertures with an occasional requirement to reach beyond the 200mm range, go with the 70-200 f2.8L and the teleconverter.

    If you are outdoors (wildlife shooter) and range (for the weight) is necessary, you are probably better owning the 100-400L.

    They are both wonderful zooms (I used to have both). In my case, the 100-400L saw a lot of use while the 70-200L IS collected dust.
     
  3. evo5gsr

    evo5gsr TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    IMO, there's no reason to have both the 70-200 and 100-400, unless you really need the extra range.
     
  4. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    well I just received the 70-200 2.8 IS. It is a great lens, everything I expected (high expectations) and more. I've owned the Sigma 70-200, so I am familiar with that range. Simply put, I would like more range. Not necessarily for the money-making auto racingi shots, but rather for the fun outdoors shots of birds, animals, etc.

    I'm understanding from the responses that the 2x wouldn't necessarily be a bad purchase since I have the 70-200 already.
     
  5. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,817
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Have used both (never owned them though). I've even tried the 70-200mm with the TC.

    The 100-400 is a great wildlife lens, no question about it. But you would miss having the ability to shoot at F2.8.

    For that reason, I'd suggest the 70-200 and the TC. The image quality of that lens is so good, that even the TC doesn't drag it down to the level of a cheap lens. I think you would probably be happy with the IQ of that lens with that TC.
     
  6. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    EXACTLY what I was wanting to hear - something from experience, and to know that the TC doesn't crap out the lens.
     
  7. soylentgreen

    soylentgreen TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I had the same dilemna when deciding. Try this link:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

    The AF does slow down quite a bit on the 2x TC though. I have done comparisons and the 100-400 is better at the long end in AF response and IQ. Really depends if you are in need of that 400 all the time, than by all means the 100-400 is the way to go over the 2x TC.
     
  8. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    23,085
    Likes Received:
    3,753
    Location:
    UK - England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I had the exact same debate myself - in the end I am going for (still saving) the 70-200mm with TCs because of the following:

    1) I get a really good 70-200mm range lens that beats the 100-400mm for that range - which covers most closer up stuff *zoos and parks and such*

    2) I am very keen on my wildlife photography and whilst the 100-400 is a great lens to own I was origanly getting it mainly because it could do up to 400mm. And then I thought "why get a lens which covers such a wide range of focal lengths when you are only really after the longer end?" Better to go for the 70-200 with TC and then later aim for a proper prime long range lens which I can also use the TCs with to better effect (the 100-400 is not the greatest with the 2*)
     
  9. lostprophet

    lostprophet No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    11,770
    Likes Received:
    109
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    to quote myself...
     
  10. CanonSnob

    CanonSnob TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denver
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    keith. Thanks for posting. I'm in the same boat. The 200mm is the longest in my bag, Sigma 2.8. Good lens but I want to put the L glass on there. I was between the 28-300mm, 100-400mm, or the 2X and eventually get the 28-200 2.8 IS USM L
    My sigma's 200mm just isn't cutting it down long straights and other farther out corners on track that don't let you get as close to the action.

    looks like from lost's post there is minimal quality loss
     
  11. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    What do people think of Kenko? I googled a little bit and people seemed pleased with the value.

    I've dropped so much money on nice canon gear lately (upgrading decent equip to awesome equip) and now it would be hard to buy something that's not the 'best'
     
  12. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    23,085
    Likes Received:
    3,753
    Location:
    UK - England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Well the canon TC are designed specificaly to work with the L range of lenses are are L construction quality. Further they have weather sealing as well - which depending on your set-up and your shooting habits might or might not be important.
    Finally if you are keen on having top-end kit (from your POV) then chances are if you get the kenko now you will be after the canon TCs at some point -- might as well bite the bullet now and get the best you can
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

canon 70-200mm f/2.8l is and 2x teleconverter