gschlact Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II | |
jcolwell wrote:
Hi Dimitris,
I have most of the lenses you mention; 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS II, and 100-400L IS II (I previously owned Mk I versions of both Mk II lenses, and the non-IS f/4). I was going to say that a couple of years ago, I posted a comparison of the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x III and 100-400L IS - turns out, it was in 2012 (link below).
Basically, the image quality (IQ) of the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x III at 400mm is very similar to the 100-400L IS Mk I, maybe not quite as good. I haven't compared my 70-200 II + 2x III with the 100-400L IS II, because I don't have to. The 100-400L IS II is better than the Mk I in every respect, unless you prefer the push-pull action of the Mk I (which I kind of like, but really don't miss), or you're feeling kind of weak (the Mk II is about a half-pound heavier). Well, that's not quite true, because both the 100-400 Mk I and II are bitingly sharp in the centre. The Mk II is pretty much the same across the frame, while the Mk I gets noticeably less sharp at the edges and corners. That often doesn't matter for images you would take with this lens, but sometimes is does.
OK, back to the central issue - I decide which lens to take according to what I plan to do. The f/2.8 II is peerless. It's my all-time favourite Canon lens (as I said in a current thread on this topic). OTOH, if I'm expecting to need 400mm, or so, and I want decent AF performance, I take the 100-400/L IS II. Sometimes, I take both. The 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x III provides excellent IQ, but the AF performance at 400mm is compromised for AI Servo tracking. I can't quantify how much it is compromised, but it's not as fast as the 100-400L IS II. OTOH, if you're shooting in low light, you're probably better off with the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 1.4x III.
With respect to this particular comment, "while the 2x III really takes its toll on AF performance, on-top of the more noticeable decrease in resolution." I'd say that the decrease in resolution for 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x III is not so great, unless you're using it for action; in which case, I suspect the AI Servo, AF performance is more limiting for IQ, than the optics.
So, it depends.
Here's some old stuff.
100-400L IS (Mk I) vs 70-200II + 2x III https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1154527
The 2X III extender... Where does it really shine? (2015-05-14) https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1296858/0#12372013
70-200 + 2x III https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1209660/0#11525098
P.S. you could pick up a 1DIV for peanuts, and its AF performance would totally blow away any distinctions between the lenses under discussion, in comparison to using the same lenses with the 6D in your profile. ...Show more →
J Cowell's post here is a great summary. I would only add that the 2xiii on the 70-200 II is still quite usable for action. I realize the 100-400 would have faster AF, but the Combo with 2xiii is what I use for all my soccer shooting and it goes a very good job focusing on and following the action. (my budget creates the necessary trade off choices as I use the lens for basketball as well at times.) one last thing, definitely get the 1.4xiii too! It is faster AF, and the f4 at 280mm is very noticeably a lot more subject isolation that f5.6.
|