Don Clary Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I have owned and tested 70-200 f4L IS and 100-400 ver I.
I presently own 24-70f2.8L II, 70-200 f2.8L II, 100-400 II and 1.4XIII. I have tested all lenses multiple times on a solid tripod, using a lens resolution chart, with all lenses carefully micro-adjusted at each end of the zoom range. After micro-adjusting I like to bench mark each lens against similar focal lengths of my other lenses at the same time, same target, same lighting.
After being exceedingly pleased with 24-70 f2.8L II, and 100-400 II, I parted with 70-200 f4L IS. I felt while it was quite good and I loved the light weight, it was not up to the sharpness level of these version II lenses. I replaced it with 70-200 f2.8L II, which I feel is roughly equal to 24-70 f2.8L II and 100-400 II. I hate the relative weight of the 70-200 f2.8L II, but love its optical performance, and will drag it along on my international trips.
My comments below are not a criticism, but probably show differences in individual samples of each lens.
Jcolwell P.S. for focal lengths from 100mm to 200mm, the 70-200/4L IS is better than the 100-400L IS II. My 70-200/4L IS is consistently slightly better than my 100-400L IS II, at common focal lengths and apertures. My 70-200/2.8L IS II is consistently better than both of them. I have no reason to think that my 100-400L IS II is not operating as well as it should.
EB-1 I'd put the crossover point for the 70-200/4 IS vs. the 100-400 IS II around 175mm.
Rabbitmountain Thanks Jim, interesting comparison. The 70-200 has better contrast than the 24-105 and 70-200/4IS. The 100-400II does better in this respect than I expected. Do you own a 1.4x Extender III? If so, how would you say the 70-200ii + 1.4xiii holds up against the 100-400ii @280mm? ...Show more →
My 70-200 f2.8L II and 100-400 II were even or slightly better over the entire focal range, compared to 70-200/4L. My 70-200 f2.8L II was very slightly better at 200mm compared to 100-400 II, perhaps both equal at 100mm. The 70-200 II + 1.4x III was not equal to 100-400 II at 280mm but very close. Not enough difference to not use it.
I'm going on a September China trip and need 400mm for animals and 70-200 f2.8L II for low light night performances. Since I value wildlife over low light, I'll take 100-400 II, and leave 70-200 II + 1.4x III at home.
ggreene My 100-400 mk2 is so good that I have largely stopped using my 70-200 IS II with 1.4x TC for outdoor sports. Would love for somebody to make a decent foot for it. I have the RRS one and while it's nice it's still too small. I want one that is higher and longer so it's easier to use for hand carrying.
http://www.hejnarphotostore.com/product-p/h116.htm
I love the price, performance and workmanship and highly recommend it.
|