Ian Dobinson has recently asked for my input on 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII + 2xTC MkIII autofocus performance, in particular relative to 100-400.
In order not to go by memory alone, today I've repeated a few little tests with the combo in a garden type setting.
My assessment is as follows. The combo is somewhat more sluggish than 100-400. In addition, it does initiate a limited focus search on low and medium contrast targets probably a bit more often than 100-400. However, 100-400 has a tendency to do a full travel focus search more often which takes longer time.
In reasonably good light and on contrasty targets, the combo's AF speed is quite adequate even on the full focusing distance limiter setting.
Haven't tried using the combo on BIF, but my feeling is that 100-400 would outperform it although not by much. In effect, neither 100-400 nor the subject combo are BIF champions, but they could be of service.
The camera used was 7D, which probably has a pretty good extreme defocus handling which also helps with AF swings and focus search.
A few words about IQ. My 100-400 has a better IQ by a fair bit.....my combo is somewhat soft wide open, and stopping down makes no big difference. I suppose the combo can result in OK images if sharpened and postprocessed carefully and well.
The bottom line: my 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII + 2xTC MkIII combo is not the best substitute for my 100-400, in fact I'd use that combo only if I had nothing else at my disposal.
The test images below are SOOC JPGs resized for web only.
I agree with your comparison of the 100-400L and 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2xIII. I often use the 100-400L with 24-105L for my 'walkabout' kit. In Utah this summer, I needed the 70-200/2.8L IS II for some event shooting, and so I brought along the 2xIII for added reach.
Here's a shot of a pair of buzzards that were hoping I would soon drop dead. Thankfully, I made it back alive...
The first image shows the entire photo, and the second shows a 100% crop of "the business end". Handheld with 1DsIII at 400mm (200mm x 2), f/8, 1/640 sec, ISO 400.
Jim, however, you might have missed a major close-up BIF opportunity. All you had to do is drop on the ground, pretend to be dead, and then photograph them as they swoop down upon you.
Jim, however, you might have missed a major close-up BIF opportunity. All you had to do is drop on the ground, pretend to be dead, and then photograph them as they swoop down upon you.
now now Peter, there are a few on here that I think wouldnt be missed if they tried that tactic , but I wouldnt put Jim in that group
anyway thanks for the 'test' .
Im at the edge of the Stab Pipe cliff and I think im just looking for that extra push .
To be able to get the stab pipe im going to have to shift a fair bit of my existing gear. so I was thinking the 100-400 could fall on its sword in pursuite of that 70-200 geatness. but alas thats probably not the case. I dont think i would have much trouble like Jim did in using a 2x when im packing only the 70-200 (although my 2x wont be the canon mk3) . But im getting the impression that the 100-400 may have to stay in the bag until something better comes along .
anyway the sale of my 24-105, old now unused 40D and MDP should get me close to the target figure. the Pipe will have to be the last item to go as I dont want to have sold it and then be too far sort of target as Im not going to settle for just a mk1 70-200 IS or the Non IS (im sure they are fine lenses) . and I've pretty much discounted the option of getting the f4 version and keeping the pipe as well
Thanks for the pics. This really helps me out as well. I have a 7D and the 70-200 MkII. However, planning a Yellowstone trip for next spring/summer and am in need of something longer. Debating between the 100-400L and just getting the 2xIII and saving some coin. Was leaning toward the 100-400 anyway and this just confirms, that is the way to go.
Now if I could just make a good argument for a 500.
Hmmmmm.
A couple shots from my 70-200 f/2.8L IS MK II USM.
Come on Ian...You know you want one!!!
I can't give the same comps with the 1.4X or 2X TC's...
These are a bit older, but nonetheless!!!
I have tried the two combinations.
the 70-200 2.8 IS II with 2xIII is about creates images which are about 10% more magnified than 100-400. is has a slightly narrower fov, so the 400 is more like 380.
the combo is a little heavier, and I find does not balance as well as 100-400. Of course the IS is much better on the combo.
for me, center sharpness is actually very close, with only a slight edge to 100-400 at f 5.6 in center. the corners more edge to 100-400. on 5d3, I find both of them good at f 5.6. On 7D, the difference is a little more visible.
Initial focus acquisition is very similar in good light. Tracking is superior on the 100-400 for BIF, when bird is moving towards you. the 70-200 with tc struggles there. of course the 100-400 is not fantastic either.
I would say, on the full frame, for non BIF use, if you dont the slight increase in weight and front heavy ballance of 70-200+2xTC, it is quite an adequate substitute for the 100-400, and in fact in certain cases, (shooting handheld at anything slower than 1/640 sec) will improve your keeper rate and general sharpness b/c of much better IS.
PetKal wrote:
Buzzard, Eagle, Turkey or whatever.....it's all the same difference: they all have feathers and beaks, and their young ones taste like chicken.
Why do you photograph birds, because they move? You could just as easily use your expensive gears on cars or skate boarders! At the bay near us they fly kites - bright colors, well defined edges, they move fast but within a limited range - great subjects for a big lens
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Why do you photograph birds, because they move? You could just as easily use your expensive gears on cars or skate boarders! At the bay near us they fly kites - bright colors, well defined edges, they move fast but within a limited range - great subjects for a big lens
That is true. Some day soon I hope to switch to RC model airplanes.
"That is true. Some day soon I hope to switch to RC model airplanes"
Now you're talking. Might be a new challenge but I bet you'd make a lot of new friends. R/C er's love to see photos of their planes / heli's in action. How many birds have commented on your GREAT photos.
PetKal wrote:
Buzzard, Eagle, Turkey or whatever.....it's all the same difference: they all have feathers and beaks, and their young ones taste like chicken.
Yeah, go smell a buzzard sometime. I dare you to cook one and eat it. Double dog dare you.
It will NOT taste like turkey.
I picked up a buzzard one time for my university's avian program. DAMN that is a smell you don't ever forget!!
Cicopo wrote:
"That is true. Some day soon I hope to switch to RC model airplanes"
Now you're talking. Might be a new challenge but I bet you'd make a lot of new friends. R/C er's love to see photos of their planes / heli's in action. How many birds have commented on your GREAT photos.
Larry, I am kinda serious......I love to watch any sort of flight, and have loved aircraft since my childhood.
. 
