70-200 w/ 2x extender VS. 100-400

H

huge1day

New member
I know I stand a chance of getting ridiculed for this but...just give a little help to a newbie

As the subject line says, How would the 70-200 w/2x extender compare to the 100-400? I know I want to buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS model, just wondering if you add the extender how would it compare to the 100-400? I assume that it will work but not as well as the real thing. But does anyone have first hand experience or anyone with an educated opinion?

Bart
 
A 2x extender is almost never a good idea.

You loose two full stops of light, which depending on the body, may render your autofocus inoperable. I've used a 1.4x on the 70-200 and it works okay but it's not as sharp as the 100-400 or the 70-200 without it.

Why pay extra for the f/2.8 just to turn it into a f/5.6?
 
Not trying to argue, just wanting to understand. Isn't the 100-400 5.6@ 400? Then it would be the same? Would the 70-200 with 2x extender shoot as good as the 100-400? I have the 40d.

I know I am going to buy the 70-200. I am going to South Africa next year, not sure if I will be able to purchase a long tele lens. Just trying to understand and prepare.

Bart
 
Like I said earlier, a 2x extender is almost never a good idea.

Anything that you put in the path of the light will degrade the image. For occasional use, you can get away with the 1.4x but I wouldn't recommend that anyone use a 2x TC on any lens.

There are enough pixels on the 40D that you can zoom by cropping after the fact and still have a large image.
 
I would think the majority of the time I would be using the 400mm not 100mm. If renting is an option, for a more $$(it is actually cheaper at this website) I could rent the 400mm f2.8. How much difference do you think there is between the 400mm and the 100-400?

Have you ever rented from rentglass.com? I have also looked at lensdepot.com and borrowlenses.com.

Bart
 
The 400 2.8 is a great lens. It's several stops faster so if wildlife is what you're after it'd be a better choice.

I've not used rentglass but have online friends who have. I generally just buy the lens and let my wife yell at me. It's refreshing. :)
 
I am more of a wildlife photographer than a landscaper like Doug, so maybe I can add something. A 2x converter can do a reasonable job with L lenses but as Doug said, it is not ideal. If you cannot afford 2 lenses and have decided to buy the 70-200 then a TC would be an option to extend your range. You would be hard pressed to be able to see the degredation of IQ with the 1.4x tc. But the 2x does not have perfect reveiws.

If you are going to rent a lens for wildlife, skip the 400 2.8. It is big and heavy and its best purpose is for indoor sports shots and with wildlife you are just never close enough. I would look at the 500 f/4 or the 600 f/4 and if you are renting and it is available, maybe the new 800. You can put a 1.4x tc behind these and get some nice shots.

Mike
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13259106#post13259106 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
The 400 2.8 is a great lens. It's several stops faster so if wildlife is what you're after it'd be a better choice.

I've not used rentglass but have online friends who have. I generally just buy the lens and let my wife yell at me. It's refreshing. :)
Click to expand...


I've thought about this technique recently...but since my next purchase looks to be about $5K I think the yelling would be from across the courtroom during the divorce hearing and that might not be so refreshing!

To the OP, a 400mm 2.8 is big and heavy (oh, and I'm a darksider btw....Nikon here) BUT a nice prime like that would give spectacular results and if you are going on safari then odds are you are not walking around all day with it but more like driving around. Could be worth it.

Then again you could become addicted to sharp, fast glass and be deeper in the poor house before you know it!

The 70-200 2.8 would be an outstanding purchase (if it's anything like Nikon's and I'm positive that it is) and you would not be disappointed. I've heard some good things about Canon's 100-400 (while researching Nikon's 80-400...the two different lenses get compared frequently) but only in regards to "if you need to go long on the cheap this is a viable alternative". It's entirely up to you which way to go.

Just be sure to share the photos of your safari!!!!
 
In wildlife reach is everything !!!! 400 MM would not be long enough especially on a full frame or 1.3 crop, going on safari I would suggest nothing less than the 500MM weighs 8.5lbs. its very hand holdable the 400MM 2.8 weighs 11.8lbs. and the 600MM weighs 11.8lbs. are virtually the same weight and not hand holdable for any length of time . The 800MM weighs 9.9lbs. is balanced rather well but I have not gone out with for any period of time so I cant give an opinion on it.
 
This picture was from a 30D and a 400mm 5.6 at 200 yards. Uncropped.

IMG_2272.jpg


As you see, even with a 1.6x sensor, I needed more lens.

Mike
 
thanks for all the responses. I think I will end up buying both the 70-200 and a 100-400 to have. But will also see if I can rent a 500 or 600 for the trip.

I thought the link that was given twice was very helpful. It actually compared exactly what I was asking. With the 2x extender the picture was blurry at the lower f-stops. At f11 the two lenses preformed about the same.

Based on Mike's picture for my trip I guess now I need to do some homework on the 1.4 extender in respect to some of the longer lenses.

Thanks again for all the responses,
Bart
 
I'd look into the Sigma 50-500mm or the new 150-500mm OS. Any one of these lenses can be a good choice for shooting wildlife outdoors. I have used the 50-500mm with 1.4x and it looks fine to me. A little sharpening in PP can also help.

The 70-200mm IS is a great lens but is too short for shooting wildlife unless you're going "Safari style" where you can come really close.

For birding, I'd recommend renting the 600mm f4 (with the 1.4x handy just in case).
 
Shooting BIF is difficult when on a tripod gimbel head or not which is what has to be done with the 600MM. I use the 500MM with the 1.4 and get good results all handheld. Couple examples:

IMG_2477.jpg


IMG_5944.jpg
 
Definitely no HH on the 600mm. But you can HH the 50-500mm Sigma and just mount the 600mm with 1.4x TC. You're probably be bringing 2 bodies anyway for this trip so just have both set-up ready to go for birding if the condition allows.
 
I've always wanted to try a 2x converter on my own 70-200 f/2.8 IS. With the 1.4x, I notice only light quality reduction and would not hesitate to use it.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13269539#post13269539 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by huge1day
thanks for all the responses. I think I will end up buying both the 70-200 and a 100-400 to have. But will also see if I can rent a 500 or 600 for the trip.

again for all the responses,
Bart
Click to expand...


Just wondering why buy both? With the two lenses you have 70-400 covered, or with just one you have 100-400 covered. If you had to change lenses anyway to go below 100mm, wouldn't you rather have a 24-70L, or 17-55L, or maybe even 17-85?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
5.7ft tank stocking
Replies
7
Views
298
ZanaZoola14
Z
D
R/O Membrane GPH rating shipped 100 when ordered 50
Replies
3
Views
254
Vinny Kreyling
Vinny Kreyling
H
Moving Tank Breakdown Fast Sale
Replies
3
Views
548
OldReefGuy
O
Dono
Moving/Custom Tank breakdown
Replies
1
Views
566
dadummy
dadummy
JustSalty
New tank setup… slate for canopy? Too heavy?
Replies
7
Views
593
JustSalty
JustSalty
Back
Top