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

keith204 · May 28, 2008

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.

usayit · May 28, 2008

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.

evo5gsr · May 28, 2008

IMO, there's no reason to have both the 70-200 and 100-400, unless you really need the extra range.

keith204 · May 29, 2008

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.

Big Mike · May 29, 2008

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.

keith204 · May 29, 2008

Big Mike said:
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.

EXACTLY what I was wanting to hear - something from experience, and to know that the TC doesn't crap out the lens.

soylentgreen · May 29, 2008

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.

Overread · May 29, 2008

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*)

lostprophet · May 29, 2008

to quote myself...

lostprophet said:
Well as you know I have and use the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS and the 300mm 2.8 IS both with and without the 1.4x and 2x Canon Extenders II for wildlife and aviation photography.

I wouldn't swap them for anything!!

The 70-200 2.8 + 2x gives me better quality than I ever got with either of the two 100-400mm IS lenses I have owned, first one got a bit too wet !! Now that might be due to me having to bad copies but as they were bought about 2 years apart the chances of that are slim in my mind.

I posted some examples of shots I've taken with the lenses and Extenders here in reply 7 and 13

Weight wise the 300mm and 2x combined on a 1D body is easy to hand held, I often do it for a whole day at a time at airshows, pointing the camera straight up.

CanonSnob · May 29, 2008

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

keith204 · May 29, 2008

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'

Overread · May 29, 2008

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

soylentgreen · May 30, 2008

keith204 said:
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'

Why drive a Ferrrari and put hubcaps on it? Unless they are the spinner hubcaps, I might make an exception for those. :mrgreen: Seriuosly though, how much cheaper are the off-brands compared to Canon's. My whole think is the seamless integration of Canon's TC's to their lenses and IQ.

keith204 · May 30, 2008

Overread said:
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

soylentgreen said:
Why drive a Ferrrari and put hubcaps on it? Unless they are the spinner hubcaps, I might make an exception for those. :mrgreen: Seriuosly though, how much cheaper are the off-brands compared to Canon's. My whole think is the seamless integration of Canon's TC's to their lenses and IQ.

Yeah knowing my recent history of upgrading everything, if I bought the Kenko, a Canon upgrade would be in the next month.