Sorry I just don't buy it. I have both lenses but would never use the 70-200 + 2x in place of the 100-400L in real life shooting, especially bif. Those top 100-400L shots don't impress me either. I think we are seeing atmospheric conditions level the playing field. Shooting across a lot of water and at tin roofs, where heat shimmer will soften the shots is not the best way to test the lenses. The dollar bill shots are more impressive, but they aren't moving. Let's see a comparison of keeper rates for action work.
I think of it more as if I have the 70-200 out and about I know I can get good IQ if I need to use the 1.4 and 2x TC's, but I wouldn't head out with this combo if I knew I was going to be needing 400mm for most of my shots.
But I have been thinking of selling my 100-400 because I have a 70-200 2.8 MKII coming and getting a 400 5.6. When I need a zoom with a little more reach slap a 1.4 TC on the MKII
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sorry I just don't buy it. I have both lenses but would never use the 70-200 + 2x in place of the 100-400L in real life shooting, especially bif. Those top 100-400L shots don't impress me either. I think we are seeing atmospheric conditions level the playing field. Shooting across a lot of water and at tin roofs, where heat shimmer will soften the shots is not the best way to test the lenses. The dollar bill shots are more impressive, but they aren't moving. Let's see a comparison of keeper rates for action work.
I think of it more as if I have the 70-200 out and about I know I can get good IQ if I need to use the 1.4 and 2x TC's, but I wouldn't head out with this combo if I knew I was going to be needing 400mm for most of my shots....Show more →
Agreed totally, which is why I bought the 100-400 L. I should have this soon and can compare IQ, AF and IS with my 70-200 II and a 2x II to support this thread.
jcolwell wrote:
In the current thread "Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500", I speculated that the 100-400L was slightly sharper at 400mm than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x III Extender, see link below.
My summary: the 100-400L is slightly sharper, although the 700-200II + 2xIII has less CA on bright edges. In the situation tested here, both produced fine images that could be used for just about any purpose, with minimal PP.
try taking a photo of an object 50 - 100 ft away - it's becomes even more obvious that the 100-400 is sharper
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sorry I just don't buy it. I have both lenses but would never use the 70-200 + 2x in place of the 100-400L in real life shooting, especially bif. Those top 100-400L shots don't impress me either. I think we are seeing atmospheric conditions level the playing field. Shooting across a lot of water and at tin roofs, where heat shimmer will soften the shots is not the best way to test the lenses. The dollar bill shots are more impressive, but they aren't moving. Let's see a comparison of keeper rates for action work.
I think of it more as if I have the 70-200 out and about I know I can get good IQ if I need to use the 1.4 and 2x TC's, but I wouldn't head out with this combo if I knew I was going to be needing 400mm for most of my shots....Show more →
We are seeing atmospheric effects - that's one of the big challenges when comparing "real life" images. I could also compare lens resolution test chart images, but then many people would say that it's not relevant, because it's not "real life". The atmospheric effects did not change significantly during the three or so minutes required to take the comparison shots. The differences between the two in like conditions are real, although not large.
I agree that I wouldn't prefer to use the 70-200II + 2xIII over the 100-400L for shooting at 400mm, but that's exactly what I did in Utah for a month this summer. I didn't have room for both lenses, The 100-400L wouldn't be nearly as good as the 70-200II for the indoor events that I had lined up. OTOH, the 70-200II + 2xIII is nearly as good as the 100-400L, at 400mm. Easy choice for me.
Here's a sample image taken with my 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x III on 1DsIII, in Utah this summer. This was previously posted on one of Peter's threads (which was mentioned earlier, above).
Of course, some people will say that it's not a relevant example because there are obvious atmpheric effects. While others will say that it's a poor excample because I should never take an image at 400mm with a 1DsIII, when I also own a 1DIV. Of course, the 1DIV was 5,000 km away, at home with the 100-400L ...
My use for a longer lens is mainly for airshows, I hardly shoot any BiFs or wildlife, so I can take the hit in quality. For this use I did have a Sigma 150-500 but sold that to fund the 70-200 mkII, I did pick up a cheap Kenko 2x TC which I intended to use with a 7D for all the airshows I was going to this year. As it turned out though I didn't go any of the planned airshows!
I only got to test the 70-200 with the 2x TC on the 1DsII at an airshow that I only visited out of chance at the start of the season. The TC isn't that great and really suffers around the edges (I was hoping for better from the 7D crop) but it did a job. I can only imagine that the Canon 2x mkIII is a big improvement in this area. A 35L or 5D3 are the next purchases in my roadmap, then I'll probably look at something to cover the longer end again. If this is another lens or the Canon 2x mkIII I'm not too sure at the moment.... (I'm not a fan of the 100-400).
jj_glos wrote:
My use for a longer lens is mainly for airshows, I hardly shoot any BiFs or wildlife, so I can take the hit in quality. For this use I did have a Sigma 150-500 but sold that to fund the 70-200 mkII, I did pick up a cheap Kenko 2x TC which I intended to use with a 7D for all the airshows I was going to this year. As it turned out though I didn't go any of the planned airshows!
I only got to test the 70-200 with the 2x TC on the 1DsII at an airshow that I only visited out of chance at the start of the season. The TC isn't that great and really suffers around the edges (I was hoping for better from the 7D crop) but it did a job. I can only imagine that the Canon 2x mkIII is a big improvement in this area. A 35L or 5D3 are the next purchases in my roadmap, then I'll probably look at something to cover the longer end again. If this is another lens or the Canon 2x mkIII I'm not too sure at the moment.... (I'm not a fan of the 100-400)....Show more →
the new 2x Canon teleconverter on the 70-200 2.8 II is decent but unfortunately doesn't come close to the sharpness of the 100-400 at longer focal lengths
I have both of the OP's mentioned lens and for what it's worth here's my limited experience with both. The 70-200II with the 2XIII attached focuses very slow or not at all in darker venues. The 100-400 basically smokes it, in broad daylight with the sun being very bright perhaps they're closer in performance.
gocolts wrote:
Thanks for posting this, always good to see some more real-world tests.
From my experience, the 70-200/2xTC combo works well enough for me, although I'm not a BIF shooter...
if you already the 70-200 it's probably not worth buying another lens, just get an extender. Lot's of "real world" comparison pics on POTN, the 100-400 always looks sharper at comparable focal ranges and better AF
What I take away from the comparison so far, is that the 100-400 has better contrast and sharpness, but higher CA than the 70-200+2X, but not a lot. If one owned the 70-200 and had to choose between buying the 2XIII or the 100-400, it seems simple to buy the 2X and save some money and space. But if one didn't need the faster 70-200, the 100-400 would be a better choice for 300-400 range in bright light.
I agree with Pixel, there are a lot of factors with the environmental effects, but that's common with longer focal lengths, and as you pointed out, near identical between the shots (although heat/moisture mirage may greatly affect shot-to-shot quality of certain areas). The only "solution" is more examples of different subjects and distances for a comprehensive base of information. Usually, that is a personal pursuit and not often shown in its detailing on forums.
More examples would be welcome and interesting, your time permitting.
