p.2 #1 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
I've owned two copies of the 70-200 II IS and did comparisons with the 2X TC II vs. my 400/5.6 prime. Both copies of the zoom+TC I tried improved considerably when stopping down from F/5.6 to F/6.3 but neither could match the prime. I don't suspect any issue with my copy of the 2X TC because it works amazingly well on my 300/2.8 IS.
FWIW, IQ of my copy of the 100-400 (after a trip to Canon service) is also a bit better than either 70-200 II IS + 2X TC combo when comparing at 400/5.6.
That said, the new zoom is a remarkable lens and takes TCs amazingly well IMO. There were certainly situations where the 70-200 + 2X TC allowed me to get better handheld shots than the prime (or even the 100-400) thanks to the 4-stop IS. I also found the AF of the bare lens to be very quick and AF speed/accuracy was still excellent even with the 2X TC attached.
p.2 #2 · 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.
A good copy of the zoom + 2x TC will not outperform a good copy of the 400 prime
p.2 #3 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
Thanks for your comments and valuable additions everyone!
Jim: I agree that the AF speed is snappy and certainly not a reason to be afraid of the zoom+tc combo. A resolution chart like you did is more precise for the results in the plane of focus. I tried to capture both 2 and 3 dimensions in the same test.
Rich: Your comparison is highly welcome in the mix, the zoom combo holds up well out to the corners, and also seems better at capturing human subjects.
Yakim: I also found my own results to be consistent with the best copy tested by TDP.
Chris: The improvement you get by stopping down to f/6.3 seems consistent among many copies then. Also good to hear.
p.2 #4 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
Another comparison between the same lenses, this time with the 7D and and with the Kenko Pro DG 300 1.4 Teleconverter stacked on the 400 and the 70-200 with the 2X already. The images were taken from the same place as the previous test, but the light was different. The results from the 5DII are upscaled by 200% and included in the comparison.
As the results show, the 5D II sensor is nowhere near outresolving the 70-200 even with the 2X II on it. You actually get an idea of how the 70-200 at 200 mm wil perform on a 300 Megapixel full frame camera. No kidding. It is in this context the 70-200 II is miles ahead of version I.
First, at f/9 (stopped down just 1/3 stop). With the 400 and 1.4 TC, the axial color is visible as traces of purple fringing. With the zoom and stacked TC's, the contrast suffers, but the resolving power is still impressive.
Then, at f/11 Things even out a bit again. With the 400 and 1.4 TC, the traces of axial color are gone. With the zoom and stacked TC's, the contrast has improved, but the resolution not so much. Diffraction kicks in, and you can see that the 400 with TC is not as sharp as at f/9.
p.2 #5 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
Just for fun, to see what this lens really is capable of in a test situation (Accurate focus is next to impossible and the DoF is too thin for practical use):
My Sigma 2X APO TC was mounted on the back of the Kenko, with a 12 mm tube between. Infinity focus is maintained this way.
1120 mm nominal focal length with 5.6 X worth of teleconverters on Canon's best zoom lens, on Canon's highest pixel density camera, at f/22, actual pixels:
(Uprezzed 560 mm to the right, you can see that funny things happen with the magnification. Ignore the color difference.)
p.2 #6 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
I also have run alot of extender tests with the 70-200MKII and various extenders using crop bodies. The 5D MKII + 2X + 70-200MKII does however get really close to the 100-400L/ 400mm at f8.0 which is the optimum aperture to use when mounting the MKII with any 2X model extender plus the AF is still responsive enough for even BIF in decent light.
Your tests only confirm why i have the 70-200MKII to use primarily with only a 1.4 and also have the 400/f5.6 prime.
p.2 #7 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
Pleas ask if you want to know more
Sorry if I've missed this bit of info, but I assume you microadjusted the AF for the zoom/extender combination? If so, then your photos certainly show your copy of the 400mm f/5.6 is significantly sharper than your copy of the 70-200mm zoom.
I didn't realize that my casual reference to Art Morris' experience with the 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark II used with the 2X Extender Mark III would turn out to be so provocative! FWIW, I have the 400mm f/5.6, and if it was my only long lens I would not trade it for a 70-200mm zoom/extender combination. However, now that I use the 500mm f/4 as my primary birding lens, if I didn't already have the 400 and felt I needed a walk-around birding lens, I think the zoom/extender combo would do the job admirably, based on Morris' results.
p.2 #8 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
BluesWest wrote:
Sorry if I've missed this bit of info, but I assume you microadjusted the AF for the zoom/extender combination? If so, then your photos certainly show your copy of the 400mm f/5.6 is significantly sharper than your copy of the 70-200mm zoom.
I didn't realize that my casual reference to Art Morris' experience with the 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark II used with the 2X Extender Mark III would turn out to be so provocative! FWIW, I have the 400mm f/5.6, and if it was my only long lens I would not trade it for a 70-200mm zoom/extender combination. However, now that I use the 500mm f/4 as my primary birding lens, if I didn't already have the 400 and felt I needed a walk-around birding lens, I think the zoom/extender combo would do the job admirably, based on Morris' results.
Inspirational is a better word than provokative for my feelings about Morris' results, I didn't feel the need to prove anything, I just wanted to see how my own lenses work, and share the results here, so I guess everything is well
About AF microadjustment, for these tests I didn't use Phase Detect AF at all, so it is not a variable. In practical use, I find that 1 step in MA is significant to get critical focus with the Zoom/TC combo. It is that sensitive.
I think both Morris' results, and the ones shared by all of us in this thread, more than anything is a tribute to how good the zoom actually is.
@Silverfox: Thank you! I recommend you to try out the Canon 2x TC III if you haven't already done so.
p.2 #10 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
skibum5 wrote:
wow, prime not just by a little but by a mile
Yeah, the power of a direct comparison with a short range high detail target can be brutal.
If I presented this image, out of context, and said it was a 100% crop of any prime lens with a 2X TC, on any camera, I guess the typical response would be: "That's not bad for a 2X TC". Now, it is 2.8X stacked teleconverters on a zoom lens, on the 7D.
p.2 #11 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
alundeb wrote:
Yeah, the power of a direct comparison with a short range high detail target can be brutal.
If I presented this image, out of context, and said it was a 100% crop of any prime lens with a 2X TC, on any camera, I guess the typical response would be: "That's not bad for a 2X TC". Now, it is 2.8X stacked teleconverters on a zoom lens, on the 7D.
p.2 #12 · 70-200 2.8L IS II + 2X TC III vs 400 5.6L
You know, I can appreciate the usefulness of looking at different combos and whatnot for different uses and budgets. I am actually looking at this combo as a way of "slimming" the difference in FL between a crop and FF body for wildlife.
SO I tested it this morning at my local camera store. Shot the 2x at 100 on the 5d and then the bare 70-200 at 200 5.6. Very hard to tell the difference between shots from the two.
It works. Nothing wrong with the full size shots posted here.
