I know I saw a thread here some time ago with a link to an in depth comparison between the 70-200 2.8 + 1.4 and 2X extenders versus the 100-400. I was just curious if anyone remembers the link. Thanks again for a wonderful community.
Change upper left settings for the 70-200 (choose "400mm" to view the 70-200 with 2xTC) and upper right settings for the 100-400.
Fwiw, I personally use the 70-200 w/1.4 (Canon) all the time but try to avoid using it with a 2x because the quality drops noticeably. But everyone's standards are different; some have no problem with a 2x while others hesitate to use the 1.4 on any zoom.
Yes, the 100-400 is way sharper. I don't even bother using the 1.4x on my 70-200 any wider than f/5.6 max, f/8 if at all possible. Wide open the quality is terrible.
My 70-200f2.8L IS rarely gets used without my 1.4x on my 1Dmk3, my combo is sharper than any 100-400L I've tested at f5.6 (3 copies). I have tried the 2x on my 70-200, and don't recommend it. I got better results stacking two 1.4x's on it, that using the 2x.
70-200f2.8L/1.4x photos on:
20D, 1/160 @f5.6, the only reason the nose is OOF is because I focussed on the eyes:
I have been using the 100-400 for about 3 years now and I just obtained a near pristine 70-200 2.8 IS. I have heard that the 70-200 with a 1.4x is still very usable. 2x not worth the effort. I am just trying to get the longest usable range with the least amount of equipment.
I have both of these lenses and TCs. The 100-400 is far nicer/sharper/faster if you are heading toward the 400 end. I believe the review that you are looking for is here:
This has been very insightful, thanks to the original poster for reposting this!
I've been all over the fence trying to decide between the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 100-400, I do aviation photography and general photography. For me I think the versatility of the 2.8 while not at the airport outweighs carrying around the 100-400 all the time just for slightly sharper images at a longer focal length which I think I can just adjust for using some PP. Having 2.8 aperture and then having the ability to extend with the 1.4x I think will be very useful for a very little additional cost of an extender. Anyone agree or disagree?
Agreed. I only take my 1.4x off for indoor church work and some wedding work, and use below f4.0 alot, so a 100-400 would never do. However, that combo would go well along side a 100-400 for airshow/aviation work, which I do a lot. Ultimately I want a 300f2.8 with two 1.4x's stacked for birding and some aviation stuff..... hafta wait until next paycheque though.....
I think you'll find that the 1.4x doesn't kill the sharpness you'd get from the 70-200. I've gotten some tack sharp pictures in the zoo of cats with the 1.4x. So sharp I had to reduce the amount of sharpening I normally do in PP on them.
