70-200 2.8 or 100-400????

Dogdots

I just got an email on "money back" from Canon on certain lenses. I need some advice

I have the Canon 70-300 IS and I like it a lot, but I want something with alittle more reach and it has to be sharp. My 70-300 is good, but soft at 300 most times.

So....which is better for sharpness: 70-200 2.8 IS or the 100-400 IS? I would use a 2x converter on the 70-200 when needed or the 1x...just depends on the subject to get my reach I would need. My camera is the 40D.

I've heard so many different opinions on the 100-400 so I'm alittle confused. Some like it..say its sharp at 400 while others say it isn't. As for the 70-200 I've read so many good things, but with the 2x converter is it still sharp?

My dream lens is the Canon 300 2.8, but no "money back" with that lens this time around :cry

Hopefully someone can help me with this.

Thanks

ziggy53

Let's see if this works. On "The-Digital-Picture" website they have a comparison tool and I set the comparator to the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM with the EF 2x extender compared to the EF 100-400mm, f4.5-f5.6L IS USM. Using "mouseover" you can switch the view from one lens image tests to the other lens image tests. I have set both to 400mm. Feel free to try different settings and combinations.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

My recommendation is actually 2 lenses:

EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM
EF 400mm, f5.6L USM

Then add the EF 1.4x extender. This gives you a very versatile system that you can mix and match at will.

While the 70-200mm plus the 1.4x converter yields fairly acceptable results, I do think that the 2X extender is too soft for many needs.

The 400mm, f5.6L will also work with the 1.4x extender if you tape the pins or manual focus. Some people are reporting good results with that combination.

The 100-400mm zoom has a convenience factor but I do find plenty of use for a 70-200mm, f2.8 that the 100-400mm f4.5-f5.6L would not be as suitable to use. (Indoors 100mm and f4.5 is not that fast.)

kdog

That widget that Ziggy linked is cool! Notice the difference between the 70-200 F2.8 with the TC2x, and the 100-400, both at 400mm. Then compare the 400mm F5.6 to the 100-400. You'll find the 100-400 is very to the 400mm prime, and the 70-200 with the TC isn't in the same league. I own both the 400mm F5.6, and the 100-400, and if I could have only one, it would be the 100-400, hands down. The huge zoom range, and the IS are the compelling features here. The 70-200 F2.8 is of course sharper in the 100-200 range than the 100-400, but that's to be expected. If you're looking for reach and flexibility, go with the 100-400. If you're going to shoot mainly at 200mm or less, then go with the 70-200. Maybe I have a particularly good copy, but I'm very happy with the sharpness of my 100-400. Another thing I like is that the 100-400 is significantly shorter when retracted than the 400mm prime. I can for example put my camera plus this lens vertically in any of my camera bags. I cannot do that with the prime.

My biggest issue with the 400mm F5.6 is that with no IS, you really have to keep your shutter speed up high to get crisp shots hand-held (1,000s typically). Either that, or use a tripod. I've posted in the past about my experience in using this lens with the TC1.4x. I've used it on two camera bodies, with three different TC1.4x. Based on my experience, it will not reliably focus using taped pins. Manual focus, no problem. Actually, the 100-400 AFs better with taped pins.

Here's the 100-400 @400mm, F6.3, 1/640s, ISO400, hand-held. I can post dozens more like this too, and in fact have in the past in the wildlife forum.

Dogdots

Ziggy that link is good I played around with it till I got to the point of confusion as to what to do.

Oh I wish I could start my lens purchasing all over again :cry I forgot to mention I have the 24-105 lens. I've had some people say why get the 70-200 when I have the 24-105.....can a 1x convertor be used with the 24-105? Taping pins???? I've not a clue how to do that. Any "you are here" type photos to explain that to me

Kdog I've seen some of your photos and they are very good I'm leary about the 100-400 because I've heard about dust issues with that lens, but it does have the reach at 400 that I'm looking for. I'm out in the dusty prairie grasses and gravel roads all the time and dust is a big issue. Even dog hair is an issue if my two goldens are with me. Do you find dust to be a problem with that lens? The 70-200 is sharper then the 100-400 in the 70-200 range? Why would that be? I would think it would be the same sharpness. Please forgive me with all my questions, but I'm still learning

Is buying a lens confusing for other people or just me

kdog

Mary, I think the dust issue is vastly overstated if not an outright myth. I just checked mine to be sure, and there are maybe a few dust particles in the lens and I've owned it for four years. That's more than acceptable. If you want to talk about dust pumps, the 17-55 EF-S is the worst! Mine's so full of dust, I need to send it in to get cleaned. And I've had that lens less than a year. Terrible. I live in and shoot in the southwest and I'm always in dusty conditions. Suffice to say, the 100-400 has held up very well.

Regarding sharpness, there seems to be a rule in lenses that the wider the range of the zoom, the less sharp it is. If that wasn't the case, we'd all be shooting 10-500 zooms! :wow

So yeah, I would expect a 70-200 to be sharper across the range because it spans a smaller range. It seems intuitive to me, although I can't explain the physics. I bet Ziggy can though.

-joel

ziggy53

kdog wrote:

... Regarding sharpness, there seems to be a rule in lenses that the wider the range of the zoom, the less sharp it is. If that wasn't the case, we'd all be shooting 10-500 zooms! :wow

So yeah, I would expect a 70-200 to be sharper across the range because it spans a smaller range. It seems intuitive to me, although I can't explain the physics. I bet Ziggy can though.

-joel

The fact is that zoom designs are still evolving and zoom manufacturing processes are also still evolving. Zoom lenses for 35mm format still cameras only date back to 1959 and the modern zooms with aspherical elements an even more recent invention.

Wide-angle, normal/standard and telephoto focal lengths also tend to have optimal optical designs. Zoom lenses which try to provide combinations of wide-angle through telephoto tend to be highly compromised designs in favor of versatility and convenience.

Designing a lens, any lens, is not a simple task and each lens design has particular goals in mind. Zoom lens considerations:

Grind and polish specifications
Lens coatings
Color
Contrast
Center sharpness
Edge sharpness
Vignetting
Convergence
Astigmatism and field curvature
Chromatic aberrations
Distortions (Barrel vs pincushion)
Zoom range and focal lengths
Vari-focal vs Parfocal
Constant aperture vs Variable effective aperture
Back focus distance
Number of elements
Organization of elements (groups)
Glued groups vs air spaced
Glass designations (Crown, Flint, Fluorite, other low-dispersion, super-low-dispersion and ultra-low-dispersion types)


Then there are the mechanical considerations like:

Mount design including metal and structural plastics
Single or multiple cams to move the elements/groups to provide zoom and focus
Barrel design and helical thread pitch and width
Focus motor design and speed and torque specifications
Diaphragm placement, shape, control and construction
Alignment mechanisms
Focus and zoom dimensional readout windows and/or notches
Internal baffles

OK, I'm getting tired of typing and remembering different stuff and I'm sure I've omitted things. The point is that modern lenses, especially zoom lenses, are amazingly complex and precise and the more light bending you need to do (as in more zoom range or especially the combination of wide-angle and telephoto functionality) the more compromise you must accept in the system.

As you expand the range of a zoom the compromise of ultimate image quality is overtaken by the versatility of the lens.

As Joel already mentioned, zoom range can tend to affect image quality (generally the longer the range, the less the image quality in some way) as does constant aperture versus variable effective aperture (with constant aperture designs being better) and larger aperture lenses with more diaphragm blades of curved design are better than smaller aperture lenses and especially if they have few blades of straight design.

Photoskipper

I had the similar problem before, but finally, I settled with the 70-200 F2.8 IS with 2X TC instead of 100 - 400.

Both lens are good and similar size and weight (1310g vs 1380g).

I have already had the 24 -105 mm to cover the wild to portrait for the 5D FF. I need something longer.

100 - 400 has very little overlapping with the 24-105. It means that I need to change the lens more often for the mid-lenght range.

Furthermore, the 100-400 is F4.5 to 5.6 which does not give much advance at low light situation. Where the 70-200 has constantly at 2.8 up to 200 mm. Yes, they both have F5.6 at 400 mm.

I planned to get a 1.4X TC later, so that I can have 112 - 340 mm at F4. (still better than the F4.5)

One thing turned me off by the 100 -400 mm is the zoom machanism. It is different from the other L lens, it is pull and push. Once you need the 400 mm, the lens become much longer and difficult to balance.

For the 70-200 F2.8, both the AF and IS work very well with both 1.4X and 2X TC.

I am happy with the IQ with 5D FF and old 300D (Rebel) 1.6X sensor. No experience with 40D.

One of the reason I settled with 70-200 is that I used to have the 24-105 on the 5D then mount the 70-200 on the 300D for traveling and shooting on the move. So I have the coverage from 24 - 320 mm without changing the lenses. If I load the 100 - 400 on the 300D, it becomes 640 mm at the longer end, which is not possible for handheld and useless for traveling. With the 2x on the 70-200 and 1.6X body, I still have the 640 but definitely need a tripod.

Dogdots

Ziggy that was some good info....my mind was working overtime reading it, but I understood the complexity of the zoom lenses. I've got a good 70-300 and the softness at 300 is caused by me 99% of the time. I took a photo of my dog with that lens and had it on the tripod and it was good...very acceptable.

Taping the pins -- I'd still like to know more about that. If anyone would care to share how that is done. And why it would need to be done.

Photoskipper -- I see you have the 500mm now..bet it is nice. I like the idea of having two cameras with the different lenes on. Really helps with the not having to change out lenses in the field which I have a nasty habit of doing. I gave my Rebel XTI to my son and daughter-in-law so I'm with out a second camera.

Kdog -- I'm happy to hear dust isn't an issue with your lens. It has been a worry to me if I were to get the 100-400. Your area is much dustier then mine so I should be ok here....hopefully. It being a push/pull type will take some getting use to to. As for a 10-500mm lens..wouldn't that be great as long as it was sharp all the way to 500 Do you use a tripod with your lens most of the time when sitting at 400? With the photo you posted -- was that taken using a tripod?

Wish I could get both lenses at once, but that isn't going to happen :cry It certainly would stop my having to decide on which one to get now.

ziggy53

Dogdots wrote:

... Taping the pins -- I'd still like to know more about that. If anyone would care to share how that is done. And why it would need to be done.

...

As far as I know only the Canon 1D/1Ds series cameras will autofocus with lenses with a minimum aperture of f8, all other Canon cameras are a limit of f5.6. If you use a lens with a teleconverter, the lens may become an f5.6 or an f8 lens (or even slower). At f8 effective apertures the camera will cease to autofocus (except for the 1D/1Ds cameras).

The camera gets the aperture information from the lens via pins and contacts. Taping the pins on a teleconverter defeats the electrical connection and causes the camera to ignore the aperture and attempt to autofocus.

Here is a link to a site with information and pictures showing how it's done:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/0078YS

Taping the pins may leave a sticky residue from the tape that you may have to clean with alcohol so proceed at your own risk.

Alternately, you can switch the lens to manual focus and use focus confirmation to indicate when the lens is properly focused.

Dogdots

ziggy53 wrote:

As far as I know only the Canon 1D/1Ds series cameras will autofocus with lenses with a minimum aperture of f8, all other Canon cameras are a limit of f5.6. If you use a lens with a teleconverter, the lens may become an f5.6 or an f8 lens (or even slower). At f8 effective apertures the camera will cease to autofocus (except for the 1D/1Ds cameras).

The camera gets the aperture information from the lens via pins and contacts. Taping the pins on a teleconverter defeats the electrical connection and causes the camera to ignore the aperture and attempt to autofocus.

Here is a link to a site with information and pictures showing how it's done:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/0078YS

Taping the pins may leave a sticky residue from the tape that you may have to clean with alcohol so proceed at your own risk.

Alternately, you can switch the lens to manual focus and use focus confirmation to indicate when the lens is properly focused.

Thank you Ziggy for the link.....It helps to see something visually I don't understand

Did I understand this correctly: Whatever lens I get/have and I add a teleconverter it changes the f-stop..that I understand. But if it goes up to f5.6 or f8 or whatever number I will need to manual focus? I've never manual focused to take a photo yet.

I see the reason for the taping.

Ziggy...do you use convertors? And if so...do you tape them?

kdog

Photoskipper wrote:

One thing turned me off by the 100 -400 mm is the zoom machanism. It is different from the other L lens, it is pull and push. Once you need the 400 mm, the lens become much longer and difficult to balance.

Of course, most zoom lenses do get physically longer when you zoom them. The push-pull mechanism actually works perfectly on the 100-400 because you always want to cradle the lens from the bottom (true for any large lens). So you never need to change your hand position as you zoom the lens, and it's very easy to keep the lens stable. Quite brilliant I think.

Cheers,
-joel

ziggy53

Dogdots wrote:

... I've never manual focused to take a photo yet.

I see the reason for the taping.

Ziggy...do you use convertors? And if so...do you tape them?

It would be manual focus with confirmation. That means that you set the lens to manual focus and then move the focus ring until the camera "beeps" to confirm focus.

I have both a Tamron "F" series 1.4x converter and a Canon EF 1.4x II converter. I use the Canon converter mostly with the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM, but I have also used it with the 70-200mm, f4L IS USM (which becomes an f5.6 lens with the converter.) Both autofocus nicely with the Canon converter in good light but the f4 lens does occasionally have a problem in poor light and especially with subjects that lack contrast or sharp edges on which to focus. Manual focus works fine however.

I still use the Tamron converter occasionally but it works best on an EF 50mm, f1.4 USM with a close-focus diopter (oddly). I do use that combination when I want to travel light and not bring too much glass.

Dogdots

kdog wrote:

Of course, most zoom lenses do get physically longer when you zoom them. The push-pull mechanism actually works perfectly on the 100-400 because you always want to cradle the lens from the bottom (true for any large lens). So you never need to change your hand position as you zoom the lens, and it's very easy to keep the lens stable. Quite brilliant I think.

Cheers,
-joel

You mentioned cradling the lens....well I don't think I do that most of the time, but it is something I should be doing. If I do cradle the lens then using the push-pull would be easy.

Would you mind posting a photo using the 100-400 lens taken in the 200-300 range. I'd like to see how it looks. If you can't I fully understand.

Thanks Joel

Dogdots

ziggy53 wrote:

It would be manual focus with confirmation. That means that you set the lens to manual focus and then move the focus ring until the camera "beeps" to confirm focus.

I have both a Tamron "F" series 1.4x converter and a Canon EF 1.4x II converter. I use the Canon converter mostly with the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM, but I have also used it with the 70-200mm, f4L IS USM (which becomes an f5.6 lens with the converter.) Both autofocus nicely with the Canon converter in good light but the f4 lens does occasionally have a problem in poor light and especially with subjects that lack contrast or sharp edges on which to focus. Manual focus works fine however.

I still use the Tamron converter occasionally but it works best on an EF 50mm, f1.4 USM with a close-focus diopter (oddly). I do use that combination when I want to travel light and not bring too much glass.

Thanks Ziggy for letting me know how you use the converters

As of the "beep" you hear when manual focusing....I'm going to have to try that out. I never knew you would hear a beep. Good to know because I wouldn't want to trust my eyes.

kdog

Dogdots wrote:

Would you mind posting a photo using the 100-400 lens taken in the 200-300 range.

Your wish is my command. Besides, you're making me look through my old wildlife photos to find pics in that range, and that's a good thing.

210mm


260mm


260mm (again!? )


120mm (sorry, I like this shot ) 1/50s hand-held! IS rules!


275mm (taken at Death Valley)


Need any more? I've got plenty.

Cheers,
-joel

ziggy53

Dogdots wrote:

Thanks Ziggy for letting me know how you use the converters

As of the "beep" you hear when manual focusing....I'm going to have to try that out. I never knew you would hear a beep. Good to know because I wouldn't want to trust my eyes.

Some cameras you can turn the beep on and off. If you get a beep now during autofocus then it will also beep when you manually focus and hit prime focus. If the camera does not beep then you will still get focus confirmation in the viewfinder.

Photoskipper

kdog wrote:

Of course, most zoom lenses do get physically longer when you zoom them. The push-pull mechanism actually works perfectly on the 100-400 because you always want to cradle the lens from the bottom (true for any large lens). So you never need to change your hand position as you zoom the lens, and it's very easy to keep the lens stable. Quite brilliant I think.

Cheers,
-joel

You may be right that it depends on the way we hold the body and the zoom lens. My hand may be just too small to hold the zoom bellow and and support the lens. The right hand has to take most of the weight of both camera and lens. It is just a bid difficult for me. I just tried it couple times on my friend's lens and the camera shop. For 100 - 400 mm the chances of handheld is higher particularly when the IS is available.

For the 70 - 200, even with the 2X TC, my left hand still ok to support the lens and manage the zoom ring.

Dogdots

ziggy53 wrote:

Some cameras you can turn the beep on and off. If you get a beep now during autofocus then it will also beep when you manually focus and hit prime focus. If the camera does not beep then you will still get focus confirmation in the viewfinder.

Thanks Ziggy...I'll try this out as soon as I can get my camera out. My dog is sleeping in front of my closet door and unfortunately I put my camera in the closet last night

Dogdots

Joel your so kind...thank you for attaching some photos to show me. When I asked for them I thought I was asking way to much since it takes time away from what you may want to do. Thanks again
Such good photos And they showed me excatly what I wanted to see. Even the monkey you threw in as an extra. What a cutie...he looks like he's just kickin' back people watching. Your choices to share really showed me the spectrum of the lenses capabilities.

Hmmmm makes my 70-300 look somewhat inferior -- poor thing Ok....looks like my 70-300 is going to get replaced. I'm so happy Mothers Day is this week-end As for the 70-200 -- that will be the next lens on my want list. I know I'll have overlap, but the 2.8 is what I will want with the 70-200.

Thank you all for your time helping me with this decision.

rwells

This surprises me.

That's pretty shallow DOF and lots of bokeh for f/6.3...

kdog wrote:

Here's the 100-400 @400mm, F6.3, 1/640s, ISO400, hand-held. I can post dozens more like this too, and in fact have in the past in the wildlife forum.

kdog

rwells wrote:

This surprises me.

That's pretty shallow DOF and lots of bokeh for f/6.3...

Well there is the small factor that the woods in the background were about 100 yards away. That was our old home in NY, with a dead tree right out my 2nd story office window, and the woods far away as I mentioned. I had a bird feeder in the dead tree. It was quite the setup and I have scores of good shots from there.



This guy was on the rope that held up the birdfeeder. It was slung over a high branch, so that I could lower the birdfeeder to the ground to fill it.


Check out the bokeh on this one:

That was shot at a slightly different angle and has the Hudson River as the background, 1 mile away! The house was on the very top of a mountain, and the view was spectacular. That's the only thing I miss about living in NY. Well, that and the birds. :cry

Ric Grupe

kdog wrote:

I think the dust issue is vastly overstated if not an outright myth.

I let things prople said about the "wierd zoom" and "dust issues" keep me from this lens. Now I find it to be my most used and appreciated piece of gear.

Handheld with a 40D at 400mm:

Dogdots

I just hope when I get my 100-400 lens my photos will be as good as these.

rwells

Okie Dokie,

But, I was talking about the tree limb the bird was sitting on about the DOF.

Nice pics anyway. Looks like a sharp copy of that lens.

kdog wrote:

Well there is the small factor that the woods in the background were about 100 yards away. That was our old home in NY, with a dead tree right out my 2nd story office window, and the woods far away as I mentioned. I had a bird feeder in the dead tree. It was quite the setup and I have scores of good shots from there.



This guy was on the rope that held up the birdfeeder. It was slung over a high branch, so that I could lower the birdfeeder to the ground to fill it.


Check out the bokeh on this one:

That was shot at a slightly different angle and has the Hudson River as the background, 1 mile away! The house was on the very top of a mountain, and the view was spectacular. That's the only thing I miss about living in NY. Well, that and the birds. :cry

kdog

rwells wrote:

Okie Dokie,

But, I was talking about the tree limb the bird was sitting on about the DOF.

Ok, I gotcha. Well, bear in mind the far-limit of the depth of field is 1.5" on that shot. (400mm, 25', F6.3, 1.6 crop body). If you're looking at the back of that limb, it's out of range. Long teles have a very shallow DOF at close ranges.

Regards,
-joel

JohnBiggs

I can't believe no one posted this link

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

Its actual test of a 70-200 2.8 with canon 2x TC and Canon 100-400.

The end result? any 2x TC is poo. In general avoid the TCs.

Dogdots

JohnBiggs wrote:

I can't believe no one posted this link

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

Its actual test of a 70-200 2.8 with canon 2x TC and Canon 100-400.

The end result? any 2x TC is poo. In general avoid the TCs.

Interesting review -- thanks for posting the link to this

Photoskipper

Quit sure there is some trade-off when adding another 5 pieces of glasses (the 2XTC) to a lens. It is the price to pay when someone (like me) want to pay just 250 dollar to change the lens from 200mm to 400 mm.

The 1.4X perform much better than the 2X.

The reason I got the 2X was that I like the fast F2.8 for the range up to 200mm and IS. It is used more often for landscape and portrait as well some of the wildlife. The 70-200 IS was the best choice.

Another reason is weight. The 2X is only 265 gm compare to the 100-400mm of 1.38 Kg, it cuts more than 1 Kg in the backpack.

As I planned to get the 500 mm sooner or later, 70-200 serve me well for the mid-range. May consider the 100-400 again if I got a job again.

kdog

They're really such different lenses. I'd love to own the 70-200 F2.8 IS, and some day I'm sure I will. So many lenses, so little money. :cry

Dogdots

Photoskipper wrote:

Quit sure there is some trade-off when adding another 5 pieces of glasses (the 2XTC) to a lens. It is the price to pay when someone (like me) want to pay just 250 dollar to change the lens from 200mm to 400 mm.

The 1.4X perform much better than the 2X.

The reason I got the 2X was that I like the fast F2.8 for the range up to 200mm and IS. It is used more often for landscape and portrait as well some of the wildlife. The 70-200 IS was the best choice.

Another reason is weight. The 2X is only 265 gm compare to the 100-400mm of 1.38 Kg, it cuts more than 1 Kg in the backpack.

As I planned to get the 500 mm sooner or later, 70-200 serve me well for the mid-range. May consider the 100-400 again if I got a job again.

If you plan to get the 500mm or have it you wouldn't need the 100-400 for wildlife or other things that are far away Wish the 500mm would want to find a home in my backpack, but no such luck in my lifetime :cry

I understand completely your reason for getting the 70-200 and using a converter. Many people use this lens for landscape. I use my 24-105 for that purpose along with my 10-22mm.

DJT

kdog wrote:

They're really such different lenses. I'd love to own the 70-200 F2.8 IS, and some day I'm sure I will. So many lenses, so little money. :cry

AMEN!!! I want the 100-400

Mary, thought you were ordering that 1200mm from B&H Photo. You said it was only pocket change - $120,000.00