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

[BlueCorn]

Jacob,

I think that buying both is a good idea. My frame of reference comes from the fact that I sold my 70-200 when I bought the 100-400 and I regret it. The 100-400 is very large and heavy. When I'm backpacking or hiking I really wish that I still had the 70-200. As it is now, in those circumstances, I generally leave the 100-400 home because it's just too big.

 

[Jacob D]

Thanks Doug. Sometimes on paper things look one way, but it doesn't always jive with practical application. I don't own any 'big' zooms (yet) so I was curious.

 

[IPT]

Have you thought about the 300F4 IS with the 1.4 converter? It gives you a good F4 lens with IS and then you can bump it up to 420mm with the converter if you wanted to. Plus you could use the 1.4 on your 70-200. From what I have read the 300 + 1.4 quality was better (don't remember if it was much better, or a tad better, but it was better) than the 100-400 F4-5.6. The 300 f4 is a good stand alone lens too.

If you going to 500mm disregard. If you are toping out at the 100-400 range you should think about this setup.

Here is one taken this weekend with that setup.

 

[IPT]

Oh, and the 300 + 1.4 ends up being F5.6 same as the 100-400mm, BUT, you have a fixed apeture 300F4 if you want

 

[FrozenSurfer]

My $0.02 on the lenses. I have both the 100-400 and the 70-200, I also have the 300 Fixed. Here are my findings.

For wildlife, the 300 fixed is HANDS DOWN the best lens for the money. However, I personally like to get up nice and close to the wildlife, so I really like my 70-200. It is EXTREMELY versatile, light weight, and a great all around lens.

The 100-400 is a fantastic lens... it's just heavy as **** and just a hair on the soft side at both ends. For the amount of hiking and trekking I go through to get my photos, it's just not worth the weight. Also, the push pull is a PITA to get use to, and then switching back and forth is even more of a PITA.

I just got back from a local hike and in my bag I've got the 300, 70-200, 10-22, and 18-55.... along with the tripod, 4 batteries, 4 8g cards, the XSI, 40D and 20D.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13288086#post13288086 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ahuxman58
In my opinion the 2x Extender takes a big hit on IQ as where the 1.4 not nearly as bad.

Is this your opinion, or someone else's who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else...none of whom have ever actually seen a 2x extender in their life?

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

[No message]

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13308217#post13308217 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
Is this your opinion, or someone else's who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else...none of whom have ever actually seen a 2x extender in their life?

Yes. I made the same comment. It is my opinion. I've used one and I've talked to other folks who've used one. I don't know a single person who recommends a 2x TC unless it's a last resort.

You're taking a pretty arrogant tone for someone who hasn't ever used one.

I've always wanted to try a 2x converter on my own 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

 

[MCary]

I like my 400 f/5.6 L better than my girlfriends 100-400. Although it doesn't have IS. But I use it almost exclusively on a tripod or bipod. Primes should of the same quality should out perform a zoom. But is it significant and how does post processing effect the photo?

I've never used a 2x, but I often use 2 1.4's stacked. It maintains autofocus because on tc doesn't report back to the camera. IQ doesn't seem to suffer too much, but if you expect it to be equal, that's just not going to happen.

BTW stacked 1.4's are reported to have as good IQ as a 2x. True or not? Don't know.

Mike

 

[ahuxman58]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13308217#post13308217 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
Is this your opinion, or someone else's who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else...none of whom have ever actually seen a 2x extender in their life?

I have owned the Canon 2x Extender and used it for a week and took it back to where I bought cause of its inferior IQ qualities and it slowed the focus and exchanged it for the Canon 1.4 Extender they are both the same price, and have never looked back, so yes it's my opinion but also an opinion with first hand experience.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13308508#post13308508 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
Yes. I made the same comment. It is my opinion. I've used one and I've talked to other folks who've used one. I don't know a single person who recommends a 2x TC unless it's a last resort.

You're taking a pretty arrogant tone for someone who hasn't ever used one.

I have used one, just not on the 70-200. I borrowed my friend's 300mm f2.8 with 2x extender and I think they did a superb job. I'm sure it didn't deliver the same IQ as a 600mm, but price considered I would buy the 300mm with 2x extender before a 600mm lens. I don't see why the same can't be true for a 70-200 f/2.8 and 2x extender vs. 70-200 AND 100-400.

 

[FrozenSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13310854#post13310854 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
I have used one, just not on the 70-200. I borrowed my friend's 300mm f2.8 with 2x extender and I think they did a superb job. I'm sure it didn't deliver the same IQ as a 600mm, but price considered I would buy the 300mm with 2x extender before a 600mm lens. I don't see why the same can't be true for a 70-200 f/2.8 and 2x extender vs. 70-200 AND 100-400.

I have used the 2x on the 300 f2.8 and it does get a tad soft on the edges. On the 70-200 f4 it looks soft enough to notice, on the 70-200 2.8 again, looks soft enough to notice. Now, I will agree that I would rather put a 2x on a 300 F2.8 over spending the extra $$ on the 600mm. The main reason it looks softer on the 70-200 is due to the extra glass that it's required to go through. I owned the 2x for exactly 2 weeks and then it went on ebay.
If you are doing this for a fun hobby, buy the 300 f2.8 and the 2x. If you are doing this for a living, you will not be happy with the results. I tried printing one of mine in 20x30 and it looked WAY too soft.