100-400L or 70-200L f2.8 +2x extender

9designs2

9designs2

9designs2

Soldato
Joined
5 Jan 2003
Posts
3,523
Location
Somewhere in the middle
Which is the better route, second hand, the
100-400L IS USM or a
70-200L F2.8 Non IS with a x2 converter.

I'm thinking 70-200 route as it's more versatile option, gives a faster lens on it's own, and the same F5.6 with the x2. ..... ( IS version would push the costs too high)..... To be used on a 5D mk1 .... And replaces a 70-300 IS lens.

So I would get a faster sharper lens and more range for the FF sensor......(or I just put the 70-300 on my 400D and do nothing LOL..)

Planning on a couple or airshows and motor racing circuits this year.......
 
well as for teleconvertor i alway say go for the 1.4x over the 2x or even 3x as their be far less chromatic aberration with the 1.4x compared to the 2x/3x plus what chromatic aberration you do get with the 1.4x can be easily fix in photoshop if you shoot in RAW.

as for lens as my dad currently looking at them he too has look at the canon 70-200L F2.8 Non IS and the sigma 120-400mm apo dg OS f5.6-f7 len. he been lean towards the sigma one for it price, quality plus it 400mm over the canon 200mm.
 
9designs2 said:
Which is the better route, second hand, the
100-400L IS USM or a
70-200L F2.8 Non IS with a x2 converter.

I'm thinking 70-200 route as it's more versatile option, gives a faster lens on it's own, and the same F5.6 with the x2. ..... ( IS version would push the costs too high)..... To be used on a 5D mk1 .... And replaces a 70-300 IS lens.

So I would get a faster sharper lens and more range for the FF sensor......(or I just put the 70-300 on my 400D and do nothing LOL..)

Planning on a couple or airshows and motor racing circuits this year.......
Click to expand...

You need to decide which focal lengths you need. If you are mainly going to be in the 300-400mm then definitely buy the 100-400mm lens, if you are mainly 200 or less but occasionally want more reach then the 70-200 obviously makes more sense.

Teleconverters are not magic and it costs you in terms of IQ, auto-focus performance and aperture. What is worse is that since they rob you of some IQ you normally have to stop down to gain some critical sharpness. The 70-200mm lenses are not the best with teleconverters on, which are mainly designed for the exotic prime telephotos. a 2x on 70-200 may give you a 400mm f 5.6 but it wont be nearly as sharp as the 100-400 until you stop down to f/8 or so, and than lighting become a major issue. 400mm on a crop sensor, you are looking t a shutter speed of 1/800th of a second at f/5.6 to f/8 then unless you are in a desert at midday then you will struggle

If I remember rightly then Canons newest 70-200 IS takes teleconverters much much better the the older lens. So if you were thinking of going the 70-200 route with a TC, then definitely by the newest, and sadly most expensive 70-200 IS.

I would also stick to the 1.4xTC for any 70-200mm lens. Perhaps with the newest lens the 1.7x or 2.0x becomes usable but certainly not great and the older lens is not going to be acceptably with anything more than a 1.4x TC.


Remember you also need to factor in the cost of a good tripod. As you get to 400mm on a crop body the whole setup becomes incredibly sensitive to vibration and motion. Cheap tripods no longer cut it, you will need some very sturdy legs and a decent head that locks tight. This is a good read:
http://bythom.com/support.htm

I use a Gitzo 3531s with a Really Right Stuff BH-55 head for use with a 300mm f/4.0 and 1.4xTC on a 1.5x crop Nikon body.
 
as we talking tripods you have to remember the the max load it take is basicly cut to what ever the max load of the tripod head is so if your tripod legs take 12kg and the head only take 8kg the most you can put on is 8kg. if you tripod leg have a hook on it the 8kg on the head and 4kg sandbag on the hook to add support to it. but as D.P. said cheap tripods will not cut it. motto,gitzo,vanguard are the big name brands. i personally when for a red snapper tripod as it was a little bit cheaper than the big name brands but in terms of build quailty it up their with them. i put my skywatcher evostar 80ED ds pro on it along with my 550d plus some odds and ends. the thing is rock steady with all this on it could do with a better head for it, but considering i paid £69 for tripod legs & head i ain't complaining.
 
When looking for a tripod the stated weight is only the weight the tripod will support without breaking, which is a meaningless number.

As important as the eight of the system is, the focal length is really what determines how good the support must. Actually, the heavier the camera system the less prone iy will be to vibrations. Using TCs and a crop sensor adds a lot of effective focal length without much weight, so you will really need to clamp the ens down.
 
Thanks for the comments guys, tripods are bit off topic, I have a good one, old, Slik88, ok that dates me lol.... Any tripod is no use for aircraft or motor sport, a mono pod is needed, to which I have a good one, a manfroto, with a decent head, the pod is then fixed to the lens and not the camera....

I knew TC of old were the devils work, hoped that new matched L series would work better.
Agree always best to stop a lens down 1 or 2 stops, hence the f2.8 version, but that would also apply to the 100-400 as well ???? So you end up at the same aperture anyway.

If I used a crop sensor I'd probably just keep and use the 70-300 I currently own. So it's for the 5D's FF I thinking about.

The ideal is a 70-200 and the 100-400, but I was looking for lower investment
option !!!...
Which would I use more.... Good question, possibly the 70-200, would I carry both around, no..... Hence the interest in a TC.
 
The 70-200 is regarded as a very good lens, but then again so is the 100-400. The 70-200 plus extender will still be quicker than the 100-400, and without the extender will be a lot quicker.

I have a 1.4 extender and cannot notice any image quality difference with/without it on my 300f4L, this is a fixed length, and like others have said, they might not be so sharp on a zoom.

But, it does not greatly increase the focal length, a 200 would become a 280 on a full frame, whereas a 400 would become a 560, so you need more starting length to realise a better return

Depends what you want to use it for. A 100-400 is not an ideal carry about lens owing to speed. The 100-400 is best suited to tripod type photography, which it will then return some fine results, whereas the 700-200 is better for hand-held type shots.

The two lenses are difficult to compare like for like because they both excel where the other cannot, but neither can offer what the other can.

Owing to the outlay in cash it might be worth you renting one of each and a 1.4 extender, take both out and see how they compare and suit your needs.
 
The mkI isn't great with the 2x TC, the MkII however works quite well. There are threads on other photo forums which compare it well with the 100-400. They've convinced me to give it a go anyway. I'm selling my mkI and 150-500 and I've just picked up a mkII. Now just to source some 1.4 and 2.0 TC's...
 
70-200 as you say won't give the length with a 1.4, so is a non starter, needs be x2 or nothing/100-400.

Starting to sound like I need to save for both and no TC ;)

Should add I use to have. Sigma 170-500, but wasn't over impressed, pictures seemed a bit flat, sold it a few years back.
 
Last edited:
I do use the 150-500 at f8 generally, so I'd say the 100-400 is sharper wide open. Beyond that though there isn't a great deal in it. I mainly use it for airshows and it's been great. If you haven't used a push/pull lens it might be worth trying the 100-400 first as it's not everyone's cup of tea.
 
9designs2 said:
70-200 as you say won't give the length with a 1.4, so is a non starter, needs be x2 or nothing/100-400.

Starting to sound like I need to save for both and no TC ;)

Should add I use to have. Sigma 170-500, but wasn't over impressed, pictures seemed a bit flat, sold it a few years back.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't buy any 70-200mm 2.8 to use regularly with a 2x TC, but if one has to then it would definitely have to be the newest 70-200mm lenses, which are much more expensive than the older lenses.

If you really are interested in the longer range then you should perhaps think about buying a prime lens. Either the 30mmm f/4.0 (with or without a 1.4TC) or 400mm f/5.6 will give much better IQ at the longer lengths.

A 70-200mm f2.8 + a 300 or 400mm prime is much more versatile and gives much better IQ.
TBH, my 70-200mm f/2.8 when used with a 1.4xTC is not much better than my 7-300 f/5.6, and to get critical sharpness needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 The n ewer 70-200 is better but I still wouldn't buy it to use with a 2.0TC much of the time.
Really, 1.4x TC for a zoom lens is a good limit, 2.0x for some prime lenses.
 
That's an interesting idea.... I'm warming to that, 300 + 1.4 and the 70-200,also with a 1.4 if required.
The 300 would be an "event" lens, but the 1.4 and 70-200 would be carried around.

Ok numpty question, how does one spot a mkII 70-200 ?
 
A MKII has IS (image stabilizer) plus new cost a MKII is double that of the MKI
 
Last edited:
could i use a kenko 1.4x dgx pro 300 with the canon 70 - 200mm f/4 usm L or IS version will this combo work or will i just get blurry pictures.
 
Just to throw in a curve ball, considered looking at a second hand Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x TC? Would give you a 168-420mm f/4 lens, so longer and faster than the Canon 100-400mm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom