p.1 #3 · 100-400mm L IS VS 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II + 1.4 extender
I don't get pictures here, but on my 1DsII, comparing my 100-400L and my 70-200II+2xIII made me selling my 100-400 !
Basically, AF with 70-200+2x is slower, but it is clearly sharper than 100-400L. So if you need AF for bif, not so easy choice. AF is not hunting everywhere and painfully slow, it is perfectly useable, but slower. IS is also a lot better on 70-200II, and faster. No comparison there.
p.1 #4 · 100-400mm L IS VS 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II + 1.4 extender
KiboOst wrote:
I don't get pictures here, but on my 1DsII, comparing my 100-400L and my 70-200II+2xIII made me selling my 100-400 !
Basically, AF with 70-200+2x is slower, but it is clearly sharper than 100-400L. So if you need AF for bif, not so easy choice. AF is not hunting everywhere and painfully slow, it is perfectly useable, but slower. IS is also a lot better on 70-200II, and faster. No comparison there.
I have to disagree with the 70-200II + 2x being "sharper"..
I have both and my 70-200II is tack sharp and excellent with the converters, BUT the 100-400 is sharper than the 70-200 with the 2x III.
Maybe you had a softish 100-400, mine is so good, it surprises me every time I use it.
The focus on the 70-200 plus 1.4x is about on par with the 100-400, but with the 2x the 70-200 is definitely slower.
the "IS" is better on the 70-200 and overall I think if you dont need the fast focus, you can get away with the 70-200 with the 2x for many applications
p.1 #5 · 100-400mm L IS VS 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II + 1.4 extender
My 70-200/2.8L IS II + 1.4x III is slightly sharper than my 100-400L, but it's 120mm shorter. For me, a more important comparison is at 400mm, where my 100-400L is slightly sharper than my 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x III.
p.1 #6 · 100-400mm L IS VS 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II + 1.4 extender
I took this yesterday with my 70-200 +1/4x III and it is hard for me to tell the difference with or without the 1.4x extender other than reach. Also hard for me to tell the difference between that combo and my 100-400. Definitely a difference when I use the 2x/70-200 in both IQ and focus speed for BIF's.
p.1 #7 · 100-400mm L IS VS 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II + 1.4 extender
Peter, maybe, My 100-400 has never been tack sharp at 400mm (it was between 100-300). My 70-200II+2xIII is definitely tack sharp at 400mm. So, as I don't use AF a lot, it was a no brainer. Must say I was really amazed at the result ...
p.1 #8 · 100-400mm L IS VS 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II + 1.4 extender
Never owned the 100-400 (just moved to Canon), my 70-200 MkII is very sharp with the 1.4 Mk III and reasonable sharp with the 2.0 Mk III. Posted a few shots in the Sport Forum with the combo you're questioning all are heavy crops 50% or better.
p.1 #9 · 100-400mm L IS VS 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II + 1.4 extender
This question has been asked here a number of times over the last several years. The consensus (with which I agree) is that if you're more interested in 280-400 than in 70-280, and if your final choice is between these two lenses, get the 100-400. Conversely, if you're more interested in 70-280 than in 280-400, get the 70-200 plus extenders.
The 70-200 plus extenders is a very nice combination; you're not going to go far wrong either way on AF speed or IQ, but the 70-200II, even with a 1.4xIII, is sharper than the 100-400 (according to most).
p.1 #10 · 100-400mm L IS VS 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II + 1.4 extender
From looking at jcolwell's comparison the center part of the image is almost identical so if you are shooting FL limited situations a lot the 2xIII might be good enough.
p.1 #13 · 100-400mm L IS VS 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II + 1.4 extender
No, pigeon is f8 I think. The aircraft will also be stopped down to get a slower shutter speed for prop blur (full exif will be shown on Flickr). These are with a cheap (£70) Kenko 2.0 extender, which suits my purpose which is primarily air shows. Edge performance wasnt very good on the 1Ds2 so I'm hoping to see an improvement onthe rop 7D. I've seen better results with Canon extenders.
Edit: Aircraft shots are at 1/80 f14, the pigeon is 1/500 f8 (ISO3200 which on a 7D is going to lose some detail).
p.1 #15 · 100-400mm L IS VS 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II + 1.4 extender
I needed money recently so I sold my MKII and I must admit I miss the hell out of it. I picked up a non IS version and it's very nice but we all know the MKII is the best. I have gone as far as thinking of selling my 100-400 and the non IS and getting another MKII and use extender. But I am worried I would really miss the reach at 400mm
