Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2016 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II

  
 
dtolios
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


Sorry if it has been discussed before, I did try to search in past threads and I did not get a hit:

Intro:

I am seriously enjoying the lightness of my 70-200 f/4 L IS for my hikes, but I was longing for something longer.
I think I would prefer sticking with a relatively flexible zoom option, over opting for a 400 5.6 L (which I've rented before and was happy with), hopefully replacing the 70-200 f/4 altogether (wife won't like the net addition of a lens ).

The ~$1,000 150-600 options from Tamron and Sigma are great for the long reach, but remain huge even in their wide end, and relatively slow for all-around shooting with available light.


So I was mostly attracted to the latest 100-400 II that everybody agrees is a great lens if you get past its salty price. I would sell the 70-200 to recup some of the expense, remain with one big white lens and pretty much fill in the previous lens' range. Sounded good.

That is, till I've started looking into the option of getting a 70-200 II with a 2x TC III, which reportedly has a pretty solid IQ, perhaps on par or with the 100-400 II and above the old 100-400 v1, with the option to revert back to the 70-200 II without the TC, which ofc is a stellar lens - if you get past doubling the weight - again on par with the 100-400 II.
Either option would probably be sourced through FM forums, so falls in the same ballpark in good condition.

So, nough said, looking for people with actual experience with the 70-200 II + 2x TC III setups.
Will the lens deliver? I've been reading that although the 1.4x III focuses almost as fast and accurate as the bare lens along with minimal IQ penalties, while the 2x III really takes its toll on AF performance, on-top of the more noticeable decrease in resolution.

Is the above notable in RL applications? I mean, is the resulting AF performance notably worse than the 70-200 II, or notably worse than the equivalent 400 5.6 prime and 100-400 II zoom? Will that make it a totally sub-par option for action/wildlife shooting that I hope to use it for, regardless of the IQ remaining above average?

Thank you for your time reading and potentially pitching in.




Feb 10, 2016 at 07:18 PM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


I think from a sharpness/IQ standpoint the 70-200+2x holds up fairly well even compared to the 100-400II. I have both but have never done a side by side comparison. Back when I had the original 100-400 I opted to use the 70-200 + TCs on a few trips just for the versatility and found the IQ to be at least equal to that lens or maybe even better at 400 f/5.6.

However, AF with the 2xTC on the 70-200 is a big hit. I had to use the limiter to eliminate the close focusing end in order to get that combo to AF without severe hunting. With the limiter on it is fairly good. The 100-400II is much better which is further backed up by its great AF even with the 1.4TCIII at f/8.

Here are a couple examples of the 70-200 + 2xIII to see the IQ...

















Feb 10, 2016 at 08:00 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


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.



Feb 10, 2016 at 08:04 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


dtolios wrote:
Sorry if it has been discussed before, I did try to search in past threads and I did not get a hit:

Intro:

I am seriously enjoying the lightness of my 70-200 f/4 L IS for my hikes, but I was longing for something longer.
I think I would prefer sticking with a relatively flexible zoom option, over opting for a 400 5.6 L (which I've rented before and was happy with), hopefully replacing the 70-200 f/4 altogether (wife won't like the net addition of a lens ).

The ~$1,000 150-600 options from Tamron and Sigma are great for the long reach,
...Show more

A 1.4x is a better match for the 70-200/2.8 IS II than a 2x.
I only use the 70-200/2.8 IS II at wide apertures for effect or in low light.
The majority of the time the 100-400 II is the far better choice for wildlife in that range.
I can live with only 100mm at the wide end considering the 100-400 II's IQ, fast AF, and excellent IS. Keep the 70-200/4 IS for now and see if you need it after using the 100-400 II for a while.

EBH



Feb 10, 2016 at 08:32 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


If you pretend that the 100-400L is really only 200-400L, then there's no overlap with the 70-200L, and so there's no need to sacrifice one for the other.

At least, that's how I look at it.



Feb 10, 2016 at 08:39 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


jcolwell wrote:
If you pretend that the 100-400L is really only 200-400L, then there's no overlap with the 70-200L, and so there's no need to sacrifice one for the other.

At least, that's how I look at it.


The only sacrifice is your back carrying them both around.

EBH



Feb 10, 2016 at 08:42 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


My sherpa carries the 500/4L IS... not.


Feb 10, 2016 at 08:44 PM
Tapeman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


I like both a lot. If you work with marginal lighting one excels, if you are mostly at 400 the other may be a better choice.

The problem one has making these choices is "what is going to be my DOMINANT use? Other people won't really know.

Buy the one you think you will use the most first and the other one later.



Feb 10, 2016 at 09:44 PM
borno
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


My 70-200mm f2.8 is ii and 2xiii wasn't as good as my 100-400mm vi on a 7d or 7dii. I would say it would be OK on a low MP FF body (OK on my 1dsii). It is very good with a 1.4x though. I sold my 100-400mm vi just before the vii was announced to fund my 150-600mm s sigma. I'd still like a 100-400mm vii to carry around.


Feb 11, 2016 at 05:41 AM
RobAmy
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


I find the combo works really well for IQ with the 2x. AF does take a hit but still useable. My wife really likes the combo and uses it along side her 200-400mm when wanting something a little lighter. Great combo for video also. Beautiful travel setup so you still have a f2.8 lens when needed.

With the 2x attached. You can view it larger on flickr to see the detail

Checking out the 800mm by A & R Photography, on Flickr



Feb 11, 2016 at 07:16 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


If your primary need is a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom but you might sometimes need up to 400mm, get that lens plus the TC. If you regularly want to shoot in the 200mm-400mm range and you can live without f/2.8 at shorter focal lengths, get the 100-400 and don't mess with the TC.

(I have both lenses.)

Dan



Feb 11, 2016 at 09:44 AM
13867
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


gdanmitchell wrote:
If your primary need is a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom but you might sometimes need up to 400mm, get that lens plus the TC. If you regularly want to shoot in the 200mm-400mm range and you can live without f/2.8 at shorter focal lengths, get the 100-400 and don't mess with the TC.

(I have both lenses.)

Dan


What Dan said ^

CB



Feb 11, 2016 at 10:38 AM
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
...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.



Feb 11, 2016 at 12:23 PM
Iwas joeking
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


Check out the link below, the new 100-400 is clearly sharper.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0



Feb 11, 2016 at 01:17 PM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


So 70-200ii + 2xTCiii = slower AF. That makes sense. But can those who have used the combo please comment on how the AF can vary depending on the body used? Would a 1D series camera do a satisfactory job? I think I once read and article from Artie who was very impressed with using it on his trusted 1D4 for birding.


Feb 11, 2016 at 01:19 PM
skid00skid00
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


Set the dropdown on the 70-200 to 400mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

I had a 70-200 v1 and 2x. It was *awful*.



Feb 11, 2016 at 01:24 PM
Iwas joeking
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


rabbitmountain wrote:
So 70-200ii + 2xTCiii = slower AF. That makes sense. But can those who have used the combo please comment on how the AF can vary depending on the body used? Would a 1D series camera do a satisfactory job? I think I once read and article from Artie who was very impressed with using it on his trusted 1D4 for birding.


Of course a 1D will be "better", but it will still suck compared to a bare lense. There is no way that lens with a 2X will perform as well as the 100-400 in either IQ or AF speed.



Feb 11, 2016 at 04:18 PM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


I wasn't trying to compare. I own a 70-200ii and now I have a 1D4. I thought it would be nice to be able to reach 520mm just by getting a 2xiii. But if I'm left struggling with very slow focus then I won't bother.

A 100-400 is too expensive for the occasional wildlife or birds that I shoot. I also would never carry the bulk of both lenses and I take my 70-200 anywhere I go. So it's either the TC or don't shoot tele at all.

It's weird. I saw some very impressive bird shots by Arthur Morris and he sounded like he really liked the 70-200ii+2xTCiii combo. I will dig up that review and re-read...

Otherwise I may be better off with a 1.4xiii? My reach would be 364 mm. If I crop the 16mp 1D4 image down to 10 mp, which would be good enough for most of what I print, that gets me to 460mm.

Key question is: does the 70-200ii AF on a 1D4 substantially better with a 1.4xiii than a 2xiii? I mean is it like day and night?

Thanks,
Ralph



Feb 11, 2016 at 05:00 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


rabbitmountain wrote:
Key question is: does the 70-200ii AF on a 1D4 substantially better with a 1.4xiii than a 2xiii? I mean is it like day and night?


Yes, the 1.4x III has faster AF and has better IQ. OTOH, if you need 400mm, then the 2x III provides better IQ than cropping an image taken with the 1.4x III.

Day & night is a pretty subjective distinction. There's only one way to find out if it will work for you.




Feb 11, 2016 at 05:11 PM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · IQ & AF performance: 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III vs 100-400 II


Well Jim, wildlife and birding are areas where I've always wanted to step into, but never came to actually do it. So I really don't know what I need. 400mm doesn't seem like much when I see people talk about 500/4 with TC's and a crop camera. But I think that by getting a TC now that I hope to have a nice mkIV, is a low cost way to explore. But I know that gear stays in my closet if it doesn't provide fun. But your suggestion to try both sounds like a good one.


Feb 11, 2016 at 05:44 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.