Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #11 · More reach - 100-400 vs 200 2.8 + 2x - Focus/image quality |
At one point several years ago, I simultaneously owned a 100-400, a 400/5.6, a 200/2.8, and a 70-200/2.8 IS (original version).
The image quality of the 400/5.6 was very marginally better than that of the 100-400, but, to me, the difference was not nearly enough to offset the advantages that the 100-400 gives with the flexibility of the zoom and IS. Noticeably worse in image quality was the 200/2.8 with a 2x attached, and the 70-200/2.8 IS with a 2x was still further behind.
I consider either the 200/2.8 with a 2x or the 70-200 with a 2x to be acceptable solutions only if you are talking about very occasional use and only if you have no other way to get to 400 mm. And, even if the 2x III and 70-200/2.8 IS II are improved, that combination still would not be my preferred way to get to 400 mm. If I planned to spend a lot of time needing a 400 mm lens, my choice would be to buy a 400 mm lens or, at a minimum, to buy a lens that would get me to 400 mm with a 1.4x. Even with the improvements in the latest generation of extenders, there is still a big difference in the image quality hit and AF response hit that you take when you move from using a 1.4x to using a 2x. Again, any solution that requires a 2x, for me, would have to be a last resort solution when I had no other way to get to the focal length I needed and for occasional use only.