70-200 f/2.8 II + 1.4 III Extender and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6II

[TonyUSA]

Hello,

Which would make better picture (optical quality) between the two?

Thank you,

 

[Dao]

Sorry, I do not know the answer to your question. But I think both are not the same. 70-200 f/4 + 1.4 extender, it will behave close to a 100-300 f/4. With the 2x extender, both will reach 400mm with f/5.6

Here is a review of the 1.4 extender with a 200mm f/2.8 lens.
Canon 1.4X Extender EF III Review

with the following conclusion.



Conclusion
Again, we'd like to compare the 200mm ƒ/2.8 plus 1.4x Extender to the 300mm ƒ/4 to see what the quality difference might be, but we haven't yet tested that lens. In the meantime, we can certainly vouch for the optical quality of the 1.4x Extender III; you take a very slight hit on image sharpness, but not much else.

 

[zaroba]

I have the Canon 100-400 and it is a beautiful lens.

Unedited pics of a small flower, Canon T3i, 6ft away at 400mm zoom, cloudy outside with no flash:
1/640 - f5.6 http://tuwr.net/~pics/example/canon100-400/1-640 f5.6.JPG
1/500 - f10 http://tuwr.net/~pics/example/canon100-400/1-500 f10.JPG
1/50 - f40 http://tuwr.net/~pics/example/canon100-400/1-50 f40.JPG
(pics too large to attach to post)

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you.

 

[Jeff15]

Good luck with your choice.....

 

[TonyUSA]

Good luck with your choice.....

Thank you. I got both lens but will order 1.4x for 400mm lens soon and was thinking to use 1.4x for 70-200 or 100-400 too. Want to get rid of one of those two lens to fund my new body next year.

 

[Overread]

Thing is the 70-200mm is a great lens at f2.8 which is something the 100-400mm can't do ever.

Meanwhile the 100-400mm MII is better at the 200-400mm range. The 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII + 2*TC (taking it to a 140-400mm) can just get about as good as a 100-400mm MKI. The 100-400mm KII is better than the original by a long shot so in turn its far better at the long end.


Honestly I think this is more about you having to decide if what you do requires one lens more than the other; its sounding right now that you're thinking of long distance stuff and thus leaning strongly toward the 100-400mm. However other situations might push you the other way. The correct choice might even be to save money in other places and even delay the camera body update as selling either lens could set you back in some specific area.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you, Overread.

 

[photoflyer]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 and the 2x and the 1.4 extenders. I am still considering the 100-400 f4.5-5.6. I like the gear I have. The 70-200 is magic but not long enough for some situations. I use the 1.4 extender much much more than the 2x. But, when you use and extender, as good as they are, you lose more than f stops. It really depends on your mission profiles but the 100-400 is intriguing and if you shoot in full light most of the time could be an economical and flexible option.


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you.

 

[Derrel]

Thing is the 70-200mm is a great lens at f2.8 which is something the 100-400mm can't do ever.

Meanwhile the 100-400mm MII is better at the 200-400mm range. The 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII + 2*TC (taking it to a 140-400mm) can just get about as good as a 100-400mm MKI. The 100-400mm KII is better than the original by a long shot so in turn its far better at the long end.


Honestly I think this is more about you having to decide if what you do requires one lens more than the other; its sounding right now that you're thinking of long distance stuff and thus leaning strongly toward the 100-400mm. However other situations might push you the other way. The correct choice might even be to save money in other places and even delay the camera body update as selling either lens could set you back in some specific area.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you.

 

[TonyUSA]

I guess I will keep both lens. Thanks again, everyone.