help please

[stu73]

hi everyone, i"ve been saving my pennies for ages now and i can nearly afford to get the 70-200mm f2.8 l is mk11 usm. i know how good the reviews are and how everyone raves about it.
the thing thats bugging me is the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 l is mk11 usm is about £450 more expensive but double the reach which would be handy. so my question is, would fitting a 2.0 mk 111 extender to the 70-200mm giving it a 140-400mm effective range produce worse images than the 100-400mm lens? i know it would lose a couple of f/stops in doing so but it still wouldnt be slower than 5.6, also its cheaper to buy the lens and extender than the 100-400mm.
i"m going round in circles trying to make my mind up, anyone have experience of both lenses?

[DanFlag]

Re: help please

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9zWpihW8IE

[stu73]

Re: help please

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9zWpihW8IE

cheers dan, not much difference between them at the long end then. which makes me wonder why anyone would buy the 100-400mm in the 1st place.

[Tigger]

Re: help please

hi everyone, i"ve been saving my pennies for ages now and i can nearly afford to get the 70-200mm f2.8 l is mk11 usm. i know how good the reviews are and how everyone raves about it.
the thing thats bugging me is the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 l is mk11 usm is about £450 more expensive but double the reach which would be handy. so my question is, would fitting a 2.0 mk 111 extender to the 70-200mm giving it a 140-400mm effective range produce worse images than the 100-400mm lens? i know it would lose a couple of f/stops in doing so but it still wouldnt be slower than 5.6, also its cheaper to buy the lens and extender than the 100-400mm.
i"m going round in circles trying to make my mind up, anyone have experience of both lenses?

I've got both - and TBH theres very little in but a few key pointers to consider

the 100-400 is much faster to focus than the 70-200 and will lock on almost in an instant, its also shorter - by the time you put the 2x on the 70-200 its a long lens especially when you put it next to the 100-400 fully zoomed in

Another thing to consider is the 70-200 has a much smaller zoom range so you could go from 140-400 faster than the 100-400 but the new 100-400 would focus lock faster - I suppose it really comes down to what you are going to be doing with the lens - if its wildlife and your always going to be at long end then the 100-400 is the one to buy

I've posted a few test all at max zoom on my test subject doing what she does best at the weekend reading in the pool - that crop on both is around 60%

- also should you want if you went the 100-400 route you could buy the 2x later on and have a 800 lens

70-200 + 2x





100-400

[stu73]

Re: help please

cheers tigger, mainly after the lens for motor sports and air shows so fast moving really. although without the extender fitted the 70-200 would become my walkabout lens which is currently the 24-105mm f4.

[Tigger]

Re: help please

if you have 24-105 then the 100-400 would fit nice and I've walked around all day using it and its not heavy, in fact the 70-200 with x2 is heavier and a lot bigger

with your interest I wouldn't consider the 70-200 as your always going to shooting at the longer end and will need something that will lock on fast and thats the 100-400

don't get me wrong the 70-200 is a great lens and as you can see from the examples above really can't call it, but looking at performance and useability the 100-400 is better

[Parsen66]

Re: help please

That's a great test Ian and as you say there is no difference between the two in terms of IQ. I'm waiting on my 70-200 F2.8 to arrive!!! I did debate the 100-400 but for me I wanted something fast

[the black fox]

Re: help please

the super zoom market is saturated with new stuff coming out regularly ,i see nikon have today announced a new 200-500 lens at around £1200 to muddy the waters even further ,but speaking from experience you simply cannot beat a prime for speed ,and quality .so if your one of those people that tend to be at the top end consistently then the good old 400mm f5.6 is worth looking at again and if you have a 7d2 or 1d series body you can simply fit a 1.4 tc to get 560mm .
if your going to use the wide end a lot then perhaps a zoom would fit .in the case of my sigma 150-600 its invariably used at full reach so a prime would have been better (but out of my pension range )

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: help please

the super zoom market is saturated with new stuff coming out regularly ,i see nikon have today announced a new 200-500 lens at around £1200 to muddy the waters even further ,but speaking from experience you simply cannot beat a prime for speed ,and quality .so if your one of those people that tend to be at the top end consistently then the good old 400mm f5.6 is worth looking at again and if you have a 7d2 or 1d series body you can simply fit a 1.4 tc to get 560mm .
if your going to use the wide end a lot then perhaps a zoom would fit .in the case of my sigma 150-600 its invariably used at full reach so a prime would have been better (but out of my pension range )

The 400L is a top lens no doubt, but my experience with a TC on the 7D2 is less than stellar. Certainly my Sigma 150-600s work a lot better with the TC than does the 400L.

You're right about the 600mm top end though, the Canon 600 f4L is a top lens but not many of us have the wherewithal to splash that much cash on a lens.

[DrJon]

Re: help please

The 2x extenders do lose you quite a bit of contrast, so if you want 100-400 then get the mk II of that lens. However if you want a 70-200 f2.8 that's quite a different thing. I wouldn't buy the 70-200 if the main aim was to use it with an extender. Contrast example:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

Shows the 100-400, mouse-over the image for the 70-200 with the 2x. It's a big difference.

[stu73]

Re: help please

The 2x extenders do lose you quite a bit of contrast, so if you want 100-400 then get the mk II of that lens. However if you want a 70-200 f2.8 that's quite a different thing. I wouldn't buy the 70-200 if the main aim was to use it with an extender. Contrast example:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

Shows the 100-400, mouse-over the image for the 70-200 with the 2x. It's a big difference.

wow drjon, there is quite a difference showing there. i think i"ll be saving my pennies for a little while longer now to be able to get the 100-400. its also compatable with the 1.4 extender which will give it a reach of 560mm.
thankyou everyone for your input, much appreciated.

[Housey]

Re: help please

Coming a bit late to the party here. I also own both the aforementioned lenses combined with a 7D MKII and would concur with what Ian has stated.
I recently used both at a recent autocross event and the 100-400mm was the eventual lens of choice. I am also the official photographer of a local series of children's mountain bike races. For this I use my EFS 15-85mm and 70-200mm. The 70-200 is great as a portrait lens whereas the 100-400mm would be totally unsuitable. Horses for courses.

Kevin

[Tigger]

Re: help please

wow drjon, there is quite a difference showing there. i think i"ll be saving my pennies for a little while longer now to be able to get the 100-400. its also compatable with the 1.4 extender which will give it a reach of 560mm.
thankyou everyone for your input, much appreciated.

you can put the x2 on just it becomes a manual focus lens - which if your after the reach its another option

[paulr5604]

Re: help please

I don't have either but I did borrow a friends 70-200 2.8 IS MKII a couple of days ago for a wedding I photographed and by the end of the day my arms knew I had been carrying it, however it is one seriously nice bit of kit very sharp and I found it focussed well in low light aswell.

[DrJon]

Re: help please

I think the 70-200 f2.8 II is an excellent piece of glass (I own one, it's sitting on top of a chair in the corner of the room waiting to be tested with the 5Dsr, or fall off onto the floor, one or the other) but it isn't all that small or light...