p.1 #1 · 400 5.6L vs. 70-200 2.8L II plus 2x III TC
Does anybody have experience shooting the 70-200 2.8L II with the 2x III TC? I am interested in how it compares at 400 mm to the 400 5.6L with respect to AF speed, IQ, and is there any degradation in the IS capability with the use of the TC? I was able to purchase a 70-200 on the B+H special for $1974, and I am considering selling the 400.
My bodies are 7D and 1DIIN.
p.1 #2 · 400 5.6L vs. 70-200 2.8L II plus 2x III TC
If you use 400mm lens a lot, stick to the 400mm lens. It appears the 70-200L mk II does quite well with a 2x TC in IQ, but AF speed won't be as good as the 400L, which is very fast (at least in normal light). I'd only recommend it for the occasional 400mm shot, but if you do birding or sport, the prime will be a far better choice overall. The zoom will probably do better in low light with IS, but it won't help freeze the action.
IQ: The 400 5.6 is sharper in the focus plane. The zoom with 2X has a smoother out of focus transition, nicer bokeh and less longitudinal CA (bokeh fringing).
AF speed: The drive speed of the zoom + TC is of course much slower than the 400, but it also covers a much wider focus range. The drive speed measured in relation to focus distance is therefore another story, and not a clean cut between those two.
IQ: The 400 5.6 is sharper in the focus plane. The zoom with 2X has a smoother out of focus transition, nicer bokeh and less longitudinal CA (bokeh fringing).
AF speed: The drive speed of the zoom + TC is of course much slower than the 400, but it also covers a much wider focus range. The drive speed measured in relation to focus distance is therefore another story, and not a clean cut between those two.
The presence of a 2x TC will automatically slow AF speed by 75% according to Canon, so I'd be surprised if the 400 prime still does not trounce the zoom + TC combo in all measures.
If want the versatility of the zoom, but the IQ of the 400L get the 100-400L, it's that simple. I own the 70-200L II and 100-400L and I would never sell the later and use the former with a 2x TC as a full time replacement.
p.1 #7 · 400 5.6L vs. 70-200 2.8L II plus 2x III TC
I have used the 2xIII with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II quite a bit. I find it to be a useful stop-gap, when I can't be lugging the big lens with me, and I might want 400mm of focal length.
My results are ok with it, in my opinion. It wouldn't be my first choice, if I knew I would want 400 regularly in circumstances where my 500/4 isn't feasible, but it suits me fine for my purposes.
This photo (this is a significant crop) was taken in very dim light, foggy conditions, hand held topside on a small boat that was tossing, wide open, ISO800 with a 7D, 1/500 sec., from a very long distance. As I said, it works for me.
p.1 #8 · 400 5.6L vs. 70-200 2.8L II plus 2x III TC
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The presence of a 2x TC will automatically slow AF speed by 75% according to Canon, so I'd be surprised if the 400 prime still does not trounce the zoom + TC combo in all measures.
Try this:
Prefocus both to infinity.
Look at the focus scale. The distance from infinity to 10 m measured in angle of rotation is about 3 times as large on the 400.
Now get ready for the big surprise.
With both lenses (400 and 70-200 II with 2X TC III) point at a high contrast target 10 m away.
Loook in the viewfinder while activating AF.
The zoom with TC reaches focus from infinity to 10 m faster than the 400.
I have previously made an attempt at explaining it here, but it seems that surprising facts have a long way to go:
p.1 #10 · 400 5.6L vs. 70-200 2.8L II plus 2x III TC
Bottom line is if you want to shoot fast action then it's the 400 5.6. Otherwise the 70-200 w/2x is great when you have a slower or stationary subject. I shoot a lot of small BIF with the 400 5.6 and the zoom w/tc ain't gonna cut it for that. The zoom bare or with 1.4 tc is fine.
p.1 #11 · 400 5.6L vs. 70-200 2.8L II plus 2x III TC
Pixel Perfect wrote:
...
I own the 70-200L II and 100-400L and I would never sell the later and use the former with a 2x TC as a full time replacement.
Ahh, this is the exact dilemma I'm in, and exactly what I'm contemplating doing. I really don't think as a hobby shooter I can justify both. I'm struggling mightily with selling my mint 100-400L (my first real lens love) and adding a 2X to go with my 70-200L Mk II.
I know the 100-400L is probably a bit better at 400, and I've looked at so many other tests and comparisons that show a bit better IQ when pixel peeping, but really, how can I justify having both for such a small and tough to see IQ gain? Sigh...
p.1 #12 · 400 5.6L vs. 70-200 2.8L II plus 2x III TC
dwweiche wrote:
Ahh, this is the exact dilemma I'm in, and exactly what I'm contemplating doing. I really don't think as a hobby shooter I can justify both. I'm struggling mightily with selling my mint 100-400L (my first real lens love) and adding a 2X to go with my 70-200L Mk II.
I know the 100-400L is probably a bit better at 400, and I've looked at so many other tests and comparisons that show a bit better IQ when pixel peeping, but really, how can I justify having both for such a small and tough to see IQ gain? Sigh...
I have both. My 100-400 at f8 is sharper at 400mm than the 70-200 & 2xiii combo, but the combo isn't too shabby. I reversed a sale of the 100-400 because it is just a handy back up and I purchased it so long ago that I wouldn't really get much out of the sale.
p.1 #13 · 400 5.6L vs. 70-200 2.8L II plus 2x III TC
sperraglia wrote:
I have both. My 100-400 at f8 is sharper at 400mm than the 70-200 & 2xiii combo, but the combo isn't too shabby. I reversed a sale of the 100-400 because it is just a handy back up and I purchased it so long ago that I wouldn't really get much out of the sale.
I agree with these sentiments; if you can afford to keep both, and expect a lot of use in the 300-400 range, that's a good path. I had the same basic question a bit ago, when I was deciding whether to get a 100-400 or a 2xIII to go with my 70-200 IS II. Since I don't have that much use for a highly portable 400mm lens (and I have a 500/4 for when portability is not an issue), and, IMO, the 70-200 + 2xIII is "good enough" for those occasions when I can't take the big lens, I chose the latter. My decision was helped, since my 70-200 is my favorite hiking lens, it's still fabulous with the 1.4xIII on it, and I certainly don't want to be lugging both a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 100-400 on a long hike.
p.1 #14 · 400 5.6L vs. 70-200 2.8L II plus 2x III TC
An alternative approach, though not really cheaper is to use the 70-200 with at most a 1.4x II TC, use a 400L for birding or when you need 400mm. In terms of AF speed, the 70-200 + 2x may well be as good as the 100-400L, which IMO has AF speed as it's only real weakness
