p.1 #1 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
How does the image quality of my 70-200 2.8 L IS II paired with the new 2X III teleconverter compare to that of my 400 5.6 L?
Finally I got a simple side-by side comparison set up, that gave me some answers that were interesting enough to share.
Distance to target approx 10 m.
Camera 5D mk II.
Tripod, LiveView contrast detect focus, MLU, 10 sec timer release, manual exposure.
3 complete series made for each lens, and best of 3 selected for each lens. The difference between the series was smaller than the difference between the lenses.
Each series with aperture from 5.6 to 8.0 in 1/3 steps. No refocus within each series.
Raw conversion from CaptureOne 6.2 to directly to jpg. NR disabled, default sharpening (180/0.8)
Pleas ask if you want to know more.
My apologies for an unentertaining subject and for the framing not being exactly equal (The focal length is a little bit different anyway)
p.1 #2 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
Thanks for doing this test, this is a question that I have wondered about while saving up for both lenses. Looks like the 400mm 5.6 wins to me at 400 meters and is worth the extra cost instead of buying a 2x teleconverter to get to 400mm on the 70-200.
p.1 #5 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
shroud72, You're welcome!
Daan, I did of course not expect otherwise, but the question is how much worse is the TC combo, and what happens when stopping down. And then there are some unextpected results, see below:
When stopping down just 1/3 stop from 5.6 to 6.3, the zoom+TC cleans up considerably. This is good news.
The zoom+TC has good resolution but a large amount of spherical aberrations. The depth with high resolution is significantly larger.
The focus rolloff from in-focus to out-of-focus is smoother, and this is good for the bokeh.
Despite the SA, I did not observe any focus shift. this is also good news.
The Zoom+TC is actually radically better than the prime wrt LoCA or axial color. It is not unexpected that the zoom lens is well corrected for this, I learned it from theSuede and denoir at the alternative forum. Still it is surprising to see how much better than the prime it is for LoCA.
Edit: At a second look, there is actually some focus shift.
p.1 #7 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
Daan B wrote:
The prime is sharper and has more contrast. Did you expect otherwise?
I don't think anybody expected that. It's unreasonable to expect that. Nevertheless, at f/8 the zoom/TC combo performs quite well. So, if you already have a 70-200/2.8 IS II and only rarely need 400mm then a 2X TC III is probably a better choice than a 400/5.6.
p.1 #12 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
Very interesting. I think that without too much argument its safe to say that the prime performs better. I am pleasantly surprised to see the Zoom + TC having less LoCA than the prime.
I think the practical implications here is that in a pinch the 70-200 II + TC can do a decent job. I suspect that with careful PP, you'll get a solid (i.e. salable) 13x19 print (if not larger) out of the zoom combo.
For someone who only occasionally needs the reach and/or has a space premium or needs the flexibility the zoom+TC combo is appealing.
p.1 #14 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
thedigitalbean wrote:
Very interesting. I think that without too much argument its safe to say that the prime performs better. I am pleasantly surprised to see the Zoom + TC having less LoCA than the prime.
I think the practical implications here is that in a pinch the 70-200 II + TC can do a decent job. I suspect that with careful PP, you'll get a solid (i.e. salable) 13x19 print (if not larger) out of the zoom combo.
For someone who only occasionally needs the reach and/or has a space premium or needs the flexibility the zoom+TC combo is appealing.
Nice summary. When the 70-200 is the longest lens I take on a trip, it will be worthwile to bring the TC along.
p.1 #15 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
Daan B wrote:
^ Yes.
Any difference in AF speed/accuracy between the zoom + TC and prime?
The AF speed thing is a bit odd, and I don't want to say anything definitive. The drive speed with the zoom combo is not as much slower than the prime as I had thought, and the 400 5.6 has a fast AF. In search mode thoguh, you are really lost and will gain a lot by manually prefocusing.
But the odd case is when prefocused at infinity, and lock at, say, 5 m. The travel is so much shorter with the zoom than the prime, that even if it moves slower, it reaches focus faster!
Focus accuracy is good, but again, I don't want to say anything definitive.
p.1 #16 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
Judging from the 3 copies of the 70-200 with the 2x III on TDP's ISO crops, if you have a good copy of the 70-200 you can outperform the prime. If not you'll be at or below.
p.1 #17 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
I ran the same comparison and threw in the 100-400 too. I first MA'd all three lenses and TC combos on the 7D and 1DMKIII. I did the usually drill for setting up the shots and used a resolution chart to be more precise with comparisons.
What I found was the 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 2x III @f/8 was comparable to the 400 f/5.6 @f/5.6 and at f/7.1 to the 100-400 @ f/5.6.
What surprised me was how snappy the AF was with the 2x attached. Every bit as fast as the 100-400 and maybe even the 400. I certainly didn't see any handicap in that area with this combo.
p.1 #19 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
GSteve wrote:
Just a question here. If the comparison was done handheld, wouldn't the 70-200 F2.8 IS MKII with the TC 2.0 MKIII have an advantage due to the IS?
Yes definitely. Since I generally shot the 400 handheld I was more interested in comparisons under real world conditions. Anything under 800th handholding the 400 was playing with fire for me. I can go half of that on a regular basis with the 70-200 and be fine.
p.1 #20 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
Sp12 wrote:
Judging from the 3 copies of the 70-200 with the 2x III on TDP's ISO crops, if you have a good copy of the 70-200 you can outperform the prime. If not you'll be at or below.
I see the opposite. That is inline with the OP's results and common knowledge.
