which one ?

[Mr.goose]

looking at lenses for my 1D Mk II N

either a 70-200 2.8 USM
OR
100-400 2.5-5.6

both are L series

and what would be better the 70-200 with a doubler or just the 100-400 caus the doubler brings the 70-200 up to 5.6 and the 100-400 is 3.5-5.6 ?

anybody got or own any or have used any input would be helpfull

thanks

 

[DSLR noob]

Get the 70-200 because of the faster glass, not much use in 400 mm if you are always blurry.

 

[Alex_B]

the teleconverter will cost you some light as you say, so the 2.8 will not be 2.8 then anymore. Also the image quality of the 100-400 should be better than that of the 70-200 with a 2xTC.

So if you want best image quality above 200mm, then the 100-400 would be the better option IMHO.

If you want best image quality below 200mm ... then the 70-200 is your lens (and it is said to be one of the best canon zooms anyway).

So it all comes down to what purpose you will need it for! It is as simple as that. There is no generic answer to your question.

Oh and if you want best quality at 400mm go for a 400mm L prime

 

[Alex_B]

Get the 70-200 because of the faster glass, not much use in 400 mm if you are always blurry.

That is very strange logic

you need fast glass if you photograph fast moving objects or you want a very shallow DOF.

getting fast glass at 400mm is VERY expensive

 

[JIP]

That is very strange logic

you need fast glass if you photograph fast moving objects or you want a very shallow DOF.

getting fast glass at 400mm is VERY expensive

Fast glass has nothing to do with the speed of your subject or realy the depth of fiel you want but I can agree faster glass helps with a shallow DOF. That being said the max aperture of your lens is a good way to judge the quality of the lens. In this case even though you may be using a doubler the faster lens is still going to be the better quality lens of the 2.

 

[Alex_B]

Fast glass has nothing to do with the speed of your subject

If you do not want the fast moving subject motion blurred, you would want to use a wide aperture so you can use a short exposure time (or shutter speed as some people say). Hence for fast sports you would want fast glass .. even more so if there is low light (unless motion blur is a desired effect).

or realy the depth of fiel you want but I can agree faster glass helps with a shallow DOF.

So you say it has nothing to do with the DOF, but helps for a shallow DOF?

With all my lenses: the wider the aperture, the shallower the DOF. Hence a lens with a larger max aperture allows for shallower DOF (given the same distance to the subject and the same focal length).

In this case even though you may be using a doubler the faster lens is still going to be the better quality lens of the 2.

You know this from experience with these two lenses?

I have never compared these two lenses, but from my experience in most cases a decent lens without a TC gives better image quality than a decent lens with a 2xTC. Even if there are a few stops difference in max apertures between the two.

 

[EOS_JD]

Fast glass has nothing to do with the speed of your subject or realy the depth of fiel you want but I can agree faster glass helps with a shallow DOF.

Fast glass for fast moving subjects is a must have especially at longer focal lengths. You need fast shutter speeds to stop not only motion but camera shake too (although IS helps). Longer focal lengths affect dof a lot! If you are 20' from your subject the dof at 200mm and f2.8 is 0.38 feet. At 400 f5.6 the depth of field is 0.19 feet so the depth of field is affected more by the focal length than the size of the aperture. (info using the 1dMkIIN)

That being said the max aperture of your lens is a good way to judge the quality of the lens.

Both these lenses are L lenses and quality of results are superb but both have different uses and you can't just use a sweeping statement without some information to back this up. As both lenses are used in different ways they are both better and worse in some areas than the other.

In this case even though you may be using a doubler the faster lens is still going to be the better quality lens of the 2.

Not so at all. The opposite is true. The extenders cause a loss of light and a loss of image quality. The 1.4x is a better extender to get as the light and IQ loss is not so great. In fact with a 1.4x there's very little drop in IQ. I use the 70-200 f2.8L IS and a 1.4x and love it. I also have the 300 f4L IS with the 1.4x when I need longer.

That said the 100-400L is a superb very sharp lens that will be sharper than a 70-200 with converter. I don't need 400mm too often so I preferred the faster lens as it can be used in many more areas for my use.

It's how you shoot that counts and both lenses are superb for their own uses.

 

[Don Simon]

IMO faster glass is not always an indicator of better quality. An f/4 lens is often optically excellent wide-open even when compared to a faster lens. By the same token a super-fast lens may be designed primarily for use wide-open, providing a uniquely wide aperture, and may not perform as well as a slower lens. I am not referring to specific Canon lenses here, just pointing out that generalisations don't always apply.

Having said that, I'll make a blanket generalisation of my own: 2x teleconverters are almost always dreadful; look for a 1.4x.

I also don't see how fast glass has nothing to do with a fast moving subject... Assuming you are shooting in available light at a given sensitivity, to capture a moving subject you will require a certain shutter speed. To obtain that shutter speed and maintain correct exposure you will need a certain aperture, and surely it stands to reason that a faster-moving subject will require a faster shutter speed, and therefore a higher sensitivity and/or wider aperture? And given that higher sensitivity increases noise, a wider aperture is therefore preferable. So although capturing fast moving subjects is by no means the only purpose of faster glass, faster glass definitely helps for that purpose.

 

[JIP]

That is very strange logic

you need fast glass if you photograph fast moving objects or you want a very shallow DOF.

getting fast glass at 400mm is VERY expensive

When I said what I said that brought everybody out I was simply qouting this person and I still stand by that. The speed of a lens (the maximum aperture) is a judge of the quality of the glass. But I will agree looking at the lenses in question that the longer lens here used at 200+ will be alot better than the 70-200 with a doubler.

 

[EOS_JD]

Purely sharpness.....

Compare the 17-35 f2.8-4 Sigma with a 17-40 f4L - What is better? Sigma is faster but not in the same league as the Canon.

Compare the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with a Canon 70-200 f4L. The Canon is sharper wide open.... even although it's a stop slower.

You could go on. Aperture alone is not an indicator.

 

[Alex_B]

You could go on. Aperture alone is not an indicator.

in the sense that faster lens -> often more expensive -> often better built -> often better image quality
this holds in a way.

on average there is some truth in it, but it is not a guarantee to get the better lens in any way.

 

[DSLR noob]

I never said anything about aperture signifying quality as Jip did, but I meant that, you need faster shutter speeds, as fast as you can at the telephoto end of a lens. twice the focal distance with one less stop, that is hard on a shaky hands person.

 

[Alex_B]

twice the focal distance with one less stop, that is hard on a shaky hands person.

OK, I am thinking in tripod or at least monopod categories here

 

[Point-N-Shoot]

When shooting moving objects, the displacement of a moving object is directly proportional to both velocity and time...and the acceleration of the object compounds this. Now the velocity is also directly proportional to time. Time is a factor twice, making displacement proportional to the square of time. For instance, a car accelerating for two seconds would cover four times the distance of a car accelerating for only one second {2~squared = 4}. A car accelerating for three seconds would cover nine times the distance {3~squared = 9}...(this example only works when initial velocity is zero).

Now if your 70-200 2.8 glass has a factor of Y (with the 2X converter being an additional Y)...and your 100-400 glass has a factor of X,
then the formula for determining which would ultimately be the better choice would look something like this...

yy​

​

x ​

= f(x)y + g(x).

​

​

​

​

​

(x).

However, we must allow an additional 1.87 for the "L" factor. ​

The focal length (f) is related to the distance from the lens to the object (Do) and the distance from the lens to the image that is created (Di) by this equation:

Compute Do or Di, given the values of the other variables in the equation above.



Therefore, NEITHER lens will work and you must switch to a Leica rangefinder camera.

 

[DSLR noob]

But initial to the aquare root of the velocity of the aperture being.....blah blah blah. I likes my f/1.8 and I pretty much can't go back to slow glass. I know anything much past 200 @ 2.8 is insane with money, but then again I don't need telephoto. HE never said what he was shooting as his subject, so I do what I'd do in his situation to fit my needs, a fast telephoto.