70-200 + 2xTC vs. 100-400

DoctorIt · January 21, 2005

With all this talk of people's new 70-200mm lenses, I'm finally gonna ask the question I've always wanted an opinion on.

Someday when I have the money, I want a 400mm lens. I've read some reviews on both these lenses, but still would like to hear from any of you out there who have used them both:

Let's compare what I consider apples to apples, both L, but i've put in the f/2.8 withOUT IS, to keep the prices close.

70-200mm f/2.8L w/2xTC puts you at f/8 (am I right on that?)
vs.
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

So is it better to have fixed aperture even when its up at f/8? I see benefits for both. With the 70-200, you have perhaps canon's best lens (in terms of everday usability) that with the addition of a TC becomes fairly long and as long as your in good light, not too slow. The 100-400 isn't fixed, but its still faster. Comments???

mercphoto · January 21, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

70-200mm f/2.8L w/2xTC puts you at f/8 (am I right on that?)

No. f/5.6. One stop from 2.8 is 4. One stop from 4 is 5.6.

So is it better to have fixed aperture even when its up at f/8? I see benefits for both. With the 70-200, you have perhaps canon's best lens (in terms of everday usability) that with the addition of a TC becomes fairly long and as long as your in good light, not too slow. The 100-400 isn't fixed, but its still faster. Comments???

Well, the 100-400 isn't faster, as we see above. What criteria are you looking for to judge which choice is better? Image quality? Focus speed? Etc.

About the only complaint I've heard about the 100-400 is that it focuses slow. If you don't need a fast focusing lens, it seems to be a great lens at a great price. On the other hand, I've heard little good about the 2X TC.

Harryb · January 21, 2005

I have the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and the 1.4 and 2.0 tcs, the Nikon 80-400VR 4.5-5.6 and the Nikon 300/4.0. While its not a Canon set-up I think the results would be similar.

The 80-400 is the most flexible and the VR is fantastic. The 70-200 is the sharpest and my preferred lens for non-wildlife shooting. Once I add the tcs I lose sharpness and I negate the speed of the lens. The 70-200 also has the fastest AF. The 300 prime has the best combo of sharpness and contrast and its AF speed is acceptable.

The 70-200-2.8s are the prime zoom for Canon, Nikon and Sigma. I hate to negate its strengths by using tcs especially now when I have other lens that will give me the reach that the tcs would give me. The value of tcs is when you don't have other lenses (or when you want to travel lighter) that give you the same reach.

If you don't have the $ for a 400mm lens the tcs will give you the reach but you will loss sharpness and speed.

Harry

luckyrwe · January 21, 2005

I missed a lot of ashots with my 80-400VR because it was so slow focusing. I traded it for the 70-200/2.8 and was very happy. I think the Nikon 70-200/2.8VR is faster than the Canon 70-200/2.8IS, but not by much. Using a Canon TC will slow the AF down, this is by design. A buddy owns the 100-400 and one advantage is not needing to change lenses or add/remove the 2x adapter. With digital, it is nice to not worry about the dust once in a while.

DoctorIt · January 21, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

No. f/5.6. One stop from 2.8 is 4. One stop from 4 is 5.6.

Well, the 100-400 isn't faster, as we see above. What criteria are you looking for to judge which choice is better? Image quality? Focus speed? Etc.

About the only complaint I've heard about the 100-400 is that it focuses slow. If you don't need a fast focusing lens, it seems to be a great lens at a great price. On the other hand, I've heard little good about the 2X TC.

bad math this morning. of course.

So now we're dealing with the same speed at the long end. I want to know, which focuses faster and what has better image quality. From my reading I know the 70-200 2.8 focuses faster and has better quality on its own... now add the TC. How much worse does it make that lens? What I'm asking is, if the TC only degrades the quality to be equal to the 100-400, then isn't it a no brainer to buy the 70-200 + 2xTC???

mercphoto · January 21, 2005

I used a 1.4 TC this weekend with a 70-200/2.8. I noticed the focus speed was slower. Someone mentioned this was "by design". I think that's inaccurate. Rather, its a side effect. The 20D and the 1-Series have auto focus sensors that operate differently with 2.8 and faster than they do with slower apertures. So you put on the 1.4, it becomes an f/4, and the auto-focus mechanism in the camera can't use the faster sensor. Now, if that lens was an f/2.0 and you put on the tele, the focusing speed should be the same as before.

I don't know how the combination compares, in focus speed, to the 100-400 lens. I'd like to know. I am close to returning the teleconverter and getting the 100-400 instead. Unsure. The good thing, the tele is much smaller than a second lens.

gus · January 21, 2005

Just for you Doc

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

Gus

Harryb · January 21, 2005

in defens eof the 80-400VR

luckyrwe wrote:

I missed a lot of ashots with my 80-400VR because it was so slow focusing. I traded it for the 70-200/2.8 and was very happy. I think the Nikon 70-200/2.8VR is faster than the Canon 70-200/2.8IS, but not by much. Using a Canon TC will slow the AF down, this is by design. A buddy owns the 100-400 and one advantage is not needing to change lenses or add/remove the 2x adapter. With digital, it is nice to not worry about the dust once in a while.

There's no doubt that the 70-200 is the superior lens. The simple fact that it has less range to cover and that's it is 2.8 glass explains why it costs more. When you need more reach though the 80-400 is a workhorse. Its not the fastest focusin g glass you will buy but it is not as bad as it is amde out to be. When I first got it for wildlife shooting I was told that I would never ghet a decent flight shot with it. I found out that with good technique it will do well for its user. Here's a pic (not the greatest, I clipped of part of the right wing) but its not a bad action shot.

Harry

pathfinder · January 21, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Just for you Doc

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

Gus

A great direct comparison of the 70-200 + 2x extender versus the 100-400 IS. As expected, the 100-400 does significantly better at f5.6 ( wide open 0 than the 70-200+2x. Closiong down two fstops to f11, the results are almost indistinguishable. SO..... If you are only going to shoot at f11, the 70-200 might be ok, but not wide open at f2.8( which is F5.6 with the 2ex atached)

If you don't need 400mm, the 70-300 DO IS is a pretty nice little package. Small, light, black and non-intimidating to subjects, but crisp and as fast as the 100-400. I do not know if the 1.4x will work with this lens. Hmmm....

This little guy was captured with the 70-300 DO at f5.6 Looks pretty crisp to me

gus · January 21, 2005

Sorry Doc...this thread has runs its coarse. Time to hijack.

PF can you explain how come that 70-300 DO is so much shorter than any other 300 ? I clearly incorrectly assumed that it had to be longer. Is it a quality thing that they cramp the glass in closer ?

This is it 2nd one from the left....its tiny !

gus · January 21, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

This little guy was captured with the 70-300 DO at f5.6 Looks pretty crisp to me

Yerbut wait til he starts shivering & then you will wish for that f2.8.

pathfinder · January 21, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Sorry Doc...this thread has runs its coarse. Time to hijack.

PF can you explain how come that 70-300 DO is so much shorter than any other 300 ? I clearly incorrectly assumed that it had to be longer. Is it a quality thing that they cramp the glass in closer ?

This is it 2nd one from the left....its tiny !

You're right it is tiny - smaller than the 24-70 f2.8 L beside it there.

The reason the 70-300 IS DO is smaller, is the same reason the 400mm DO IS is no bigger than the 300 f2.8 IS. But when the 70-300 IS DO is extended, it is almost as long at the 100-400 lens barrel.
In a DO lens, instead of an optical element, difractive optics are a like coating on the back surface of one of the elements of the lens - that is why they are shorter and smaller. They can give rise to a ring- like bokeh of bright out of gamut highlights. I rarely see this though.

You can read Canon's statement about the 70-300 DO IS here http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=9996

I find the 70-300 IS DO is a very nice walkabout telephoto. Not really fast enough for sunrise or sunset, but adequate for most day time hand held shooting with IS. And it is small enough that it FITS nicely in the hand on a 20D.It is head and shoulders better than Canon's older 70-300 IS lens. It is not as long as the 100-400, but it is 1/3 the size to carry in a pack, and weighs less than half as much as the 100-400 ( that is a rough estimate - not a statement of mathematical fact!)

I caught this little white breasted nuthatch with the 70-300 IS DO

pathfinder · January 21, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Yerbut wait til he starts shivering & then you will wish for that f2.8.

F2.8 is always nice to have, 'gus, but my point was that the squirrel shot was shot at the wide open aperature of f5.6 This was to show not how crisp the lens is stopped down, but what it is capable of when shot wide open and almost fully zoomed out, when many zooms are not at their best optically.

gus · January 21, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

F2.8 is always nice to have, 'gus, but my point was that the squirrel shot was shot at the wide open aperature of f5.6 This was to show not how crisp the lens is stopped down, but what it is capable of when shot wide open and almost fully zoomed out, when many zooms are not at their best optically.

was only pullin' ya leg mate...

pathfinder wrote:

Not really fast enough for sunrise or sunset.

I also incorrectly assumed that you can use slow (high f stop) for this ? I always do as the sun isnt moving very fast

The more i know...the more i dont !

pathfinder · January 21, 2005

Humungus wrote:

was only pullin' ya leg mate...

Ya got me!

I also incorrectly assumed that you can use slow (high f stop) for this ? I always do as the sun isnt moving very fast
The more i know...the more i dont !

You are correct of course 'gus, that you can do a lot at sunrise or sunset with an f5.6 lens, depending on ISO and shutter speed and tripod usage. I was just saying that it is not as handy as that f2.8 you were razzing me about

luckyrwe · January 21, 2005

While we are talking about birds, the ones out here are about 12 feet away when I shoot them at 200mm and about 18 feet away when I use my 400mm. Now if a bird is 3 inches wide in profile, how do I calculate the required aperture needed to provide depth of field to get the entire bird in sharp focus?

fish · January 21, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

You're right it is tiny - smaller than the 24-70 f2.8 L beside it there.

The reason the 70-300 IS DO is smaller, is the same reason the 400mm DO IS is no bigger than the 300 f2.8 IS. But when the 70-300 IS DO is extended, it is almost as long at the 100-400 lens barrel.
In a DO lens, instead of an optical element, difractive optics are a like coating on the back surface of one of the elements of the lens - that is why they are shorter and smaller. They can give rise to a ring- like bokeh of bright out of gamut highlights. I rarely see this though.

You can read Canon's statement about the 70-300 DO IS here http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=9996

I find the 70-300 IS DO is a very nice walkabout telephoto. Not really fast enough for sunrise or sunset, but adequate for most day time hand held shooting with IS. And it is small enough that it FITS nicely in the hand on a 20D.It is head and shoulders better than Canon's older 70-300 IS lens. It is not as long as the 100-400, but it is 1/3 the size to carry in a pack, and weighs less than half as much as the 100-400 ( that is a rough estimate - not a statement of mathematical fact!)

I caught this little white breasted nuthatch with the 70-300 IS DO

You bought the DO too?? Jeebus, pathy...there's no freakin' way I can keep up with you. I give up.

That image looks oversharp. Wuzzup wit dat?

So, coming back from the hijack, my personal opinion is that the 70-200/2.8L IS with a 1.4 or 2x extension is a MUCH more flexible option than the 100-400L IS. Too, the IS system is newer, faster, and more capable than the 100-400L, which is on the edge of obsolescence.

pathfinder · January 21, 2005

fish wrote:

You bought the DO too?? Jeebus, pathy...there's no freakin' way I can keep up with you. I give up.

That image looks oversharp. Wuzzup wit dat?

I can't help myself Fish. It is so small and easy to carry around and it needed a home. I take in lost dogs too.

I think the image is not actually oversharpened. I think the background has the circular bokeh I spoke about. The bokeh is kind of like round doughnut highlights at time at times, not smooth like some lenses. Seems worse on the image here on dgrin than when I examine it in Photoshop on my monitor.

gus · January 21, 2005

I have found this during one of my lens crazed 2am meanderings...may be of interest.

http://www.pbase.com/drip/lens_tests

.

pathfinder · January 21, 2005

luckyrwe wrote:

While we are talking about birds, the ones out here are about 12 feet away when I shoot them at 200mm and about 18 feet away when I use my 400mm. Now if a bird is 3 inches wide in profile, how do I calculate the required aperture needed to provide depth of field to get the entire bird in sharp focus?

Are you kidding or are you really serious??? I have never calculated that sort of thing. I am much more of an analog kind of guy. Press the preview button on your camera to stop down the iris and examine the image in the viewfinder. Or just stop down to f8 or f11 and let fly. Examine the image in your review LCD and adjust accordingly.

fish · January 21, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

I think the image is not actually oversharpened. I think the background has the circular bokeh I spoke about. The bokeh is kind of like round doughnut highlights at time at times, not smooth like some lenses. Seems worse on the image here on dgrin than when I examine it in Photoshop on my monitor.

hmmm. funky. pls post some more stuff with that lens. max aperature.

pathfinder · January 22, 2005

fish wrote:

hmmm. funky. pls post some more stuff with that lens. max aperature.

Your wish is my command boss. Here is the squirrel I have posted more than once. Shot at f5.6 with snow as a background a bad situaton for a DO lens

Here is a deer I shot at Lincoln Trail State Park f5.6 also. I must be using this lens wide open a lot - who knew

And another

gus · January 22, 2005

Some more info i just found.....i wasnt looking for it in specific...i promise, i dont even like 'L' or white lenses. I like short black lenses like the rest of us.

http://www.camera.canon.com.my/archive/photography/nut/nuts51/index.htm

I cant get the pics to expand though ....

OlgaJ · January 22, 2005

Here's a shot of the 70-300 DO compared to the 100-400L and 70-200L f/4 in expanded size minus the hood. Any way you look at it, it is handily compact for its reach.

Olga

luckyrwe · January 22, 2005

Olga,

I like how the blinds provide height marks, as if the lenses had been arrested.

DoctorIt · January 22, 2005

that DO lens may be handy, but diffractive optics will always give you what you are seeing in the nuthatch photos - weird bokeh.

As for you, gus, you filthy hijacker!

Actually, that link to lum landscape was great. But more to the point, I got to play with the 70-200 f/2.8 last night at a basketball game. Holy crap, that is definitely the lens I will buy somday. I'm convinced, and my suspicions were correct in that the 100-400 is on the verge of being outdated.

But who are we kidding, I can't even afford a new memory card right now :cry

Damn Winger and all her L glass!

gus · January 22, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

that DO lens may be handy, but diffractive optics will always give you what you are seeing in the nuthatch photos - weird bokeh.

As for you, gus, you filthy hijacker!

Actually, that link to lum landscape was great. But more to the point, I got to play with the 70-200 f/2.8 last night at a basketball game. Holy crap, that is definitely the lens I will buy somday. I'm convinced, and my suspicions were correct in that the 100-400 is on the verge of being outdated.

But who are we kidding, I can't even afford a new memory card right now :cry

Damn Winger and all her L glass!

The whole thing is enviromental mate. We dont really have indoor sports here. Bright sun 300 days/year & animals/birds all over the place. There is a lot of club level motor racing & more surfing/kitesurfing than you can poke a stick at in strong morning & afternoon sun.

It would be foolish of me to not look at the 100-400. The converter would be on & off the 70-200 twenty times a day with me.

Just too many happy owners in FM with the 100-400 to ignor it in my situation.

fish · January 22, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

Your wish is my command boss.

ewww...that's icky.

(crossing that lens off the wishlist)

DoctorIt · January 22, 2005

fish wrote:

ewww...that's icky. (crossing that lens off the wishlist)

agreed. diffractive not good. Unless I'm mistaken, diffractive optics are only one step better than reflective optics - you know, those short little 600mm lenses you see on ebay for $100... necessary for telescopes, but kills quality.

gus · January 23, 2005

Still more interesting reading re : TC's

http://www.fredmiranda.com/TipsPage/

Oh god i am becoming so ill.

.

Andy · January 23, 2005

70-300 d.o. shots for fish

fish wrote:

hmmm. funky. pls post some more stuff with that lens. max aperature.

right here i owned the lens for a week. it's really nice. sharp, light, and the i.s. works. it's just not fast enough for me, so i returned it. i still use the 70-200 f/2.8L i.s. ...

anyhow, it's great lens if you want a good tele zoom for traveling, or for when you're too tired to carry the white lead pipe.

agree that the image quality is good, but nowhere near the 70-200L