100-400 f/4.5-5.6L vs 70-200 f/2.8 + 2.0 extender

MaleficZ

I think this will help ALOT of you. I got my hands on a 100-400 L lens for the weekend, and thought I'd compare it to my current setup. The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with a 2x extender. Both are same settings, shot in munual. both at full zoom (400mm) even though the 70-200 2x shows more zoom. ISO 100. Shutter 30.0 seconds. f/29.

70-200 f/2.8 L IS + 2.0extender on the left. 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS on the right.

Manfr3d

If you want to compare two lenses you need to make
sure they capture exactly the same frame. Otherwise
it's not possible to directly compare the two images.

Michael Reichman has a review of the 70-200/2.8 x2.0
vs. 100-400 here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

kdog

MaleficZ wrote:

Shutter 30.0 seconds. f/29.

How'd you pick those settings? I can't think of anything less real-world than that. Try the test around F5.6 to F8 which is much more representative of the type of shooting most people do with a 400mm.

Regards,
-joel

MaleficZ

Manfr3d wrote:

If you want to compare two lenses you need to make
sure they capture exactly the same frame. Otherwise
it's not possible to directly compare the two images.

Michael Reichman has a review of the 70-200/2.8 x2.0
vs. 100-400 here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

They're both at max zoom. What else do you want?

MaleficZ

kdog wrote:

How'd you pick those settings? I can't think of anything less real-world than that. Try the test around F5.6 to F8 which is much more representative of the type of shooting most people do with a 400mm.

Regards,
-joel

I wanted ISO 100 and the largest f/stop as posible so the pictures compare image sharpness not depth of field.

Man you guys, just take the comparison and stop complaining.

sirsloop

IDK... other than the fact that a 70-200/2.8L with a 2x is 400/5.6.... they really are two very very very different beasts. I'd imagine with a real world test we would see that the 100-400 ourperformed the 70-200 + 2x, but the 70-200/2.8L is an AMAZING lens even with a 1.4x. I think anybody that has used these two lenses will tell you they are apples and oranges! Heck, even the zoom works differently!

30 seconds, f/29, iso100... there are just too many variables in that setup such as diffraction, camera motion, and ambient light bouncing off the hoods. I'd do the test at f/8-11, iso 100. A couple of softboxes directly on the subject should knock down those shutter speeds to real world figures... and will eliminate problems with mirror slap..

I'd be interested to see how the 70-200/2.8L + 1.4x @280mm cropped compares to a 100-400L @ 400mm... f/8ish. I bet that would be DAMN close.

MaleficZ

sirsloop wrote:

IDK... other than the fact that a 70-200/2.8L with a 2x is 400/5.6.... they really are two very very very different beasts. I'd imagine with a real world test we would see that the 100-400 ourperformed the 70-200 + 2x, but the 70-200/2.8L is an AMAZING lens even with a 1.4x. I think anybody that has used these two lenses will tell you they are apples and oranges! Heck, even the zoom works differently!

30 seconds, f/29, iso100... there are just too many variables in that setup such as diffraction, camera motion, and ambient light bouncing off the hoods. I'd do the test at f/8-11, iso 100. A couple of softboxes directly on the subject should knock down those shutter speeds to real world figures... and will eliminate problems with mirror slap..

I'd be interested to see how the 70-200/2.8L + 1.4x @280mm cropped compares to a 100-400L @ 400mm... f/8ish. I bet that would be DAMN close.

Holy shit you guys are such whyners! Yes, they are diffrent! But for those shooting sports and know will print larg will want to see how bad the 2x is! I now remember why I dont post here much. YOu're all smarter then everyone else. ITS A COMPARISON BY A KID IN HIS APARTMENT!

Nikolai

MaleficZ wrote:

I think this will help ALOT of you. ..

Thanks for sharing!
From your shots looks like 100-400 is a tad sharper than a 70-200 + x2, but not by much.
I'm lucky enough to own both, and I usually use my x1.4 extender on 100-400 (if at all).
BTW, unless I'm mistaken, x2 drops not one, but two full f/stops, thus converting 70-200 /f2.8 into 170-400 /f11.0, which, imho, is a really slow lens for anything, especially sports...
Thanks again!

gus

MaleficZ wrote:

Holy shit you guys are such whyners! Yes, they are diffrent! But for those shooting sports and know will print larg will want to see how bad the 2x is! I now remember why I dont post here much. YOu're all smarter then everyone else. ITS A COMPARISON BY A KID IN HIS APARTMENT!

Mate ...i wont tolerate that in the group. I removed the swearing & you can cool your head for a week.

Manfr3d

MaleficZ wrote:

They're both at max zoom. What else do you want?

Setting both lenses to 400mm does not make the frame they capture
equal. Theorethicaly yes, but in the real world lenses do not exactly
have the focal length they are labeld with. If a lens is 199mm it will
be labeled 200mm for reasons of simplicity and marketing. It is clear
that a 100-400mm zoom and a 70-200 zoom plus a 2x extender cannot
be exactly the same at their "400mm" setting.

If you look at the two frames above you see (do you?) that one
frame magnifies the picture more than the other. Count the
top row of dots in the enlargement sections and you'll know what I
mean.

If you test a 100mm vs a 200mm lens and take a picture of
the same scene you cannot tell which one is sharper, because
the 200mm magnifies alot more than the 100mm and shows
more detail (this is the same hat happend to you, only that the
lenses aren't 100mm apart, maybe only 5mm). Instead you'd
have to make sure both lenses have capture exactly the same
frame (by going closer with the 100mm). Only then you can
judge which lens shows more detail than the other.

The process of testing lenses isn't overly complicated, if you
google a bit you'll find more detailed explanations on this.

jdryan3

MaleficZ wrote:

I wanted ISO 100 and the largest f/stop as posible so the pictures compare image sharpness not depth of field.

Man you guys, just take the comparison and stop complaining.

In the setup you mention the LARGEST f/stop would f/5.6, which is the f/2.8 + 2 stops and, coincidentally, the largest you can get the 100-400 @ 400.

I won't comment on the other part

sirsloop

jdryan3 wrote:

In the setup you mention the LARGEST f/stop would f/5.6, which is the f/2.8 + 2 stops and, coincidentally, the largest you can get the 100-400 @ 400.

I wasn't gonna say anything bout that cause I know what he meant... I think that goes back to the whole "everyone smarter than everyone else " comment. Well if you look at the number, its the largest... so maybe he was just making a comment about the numerical value of the aperture setting.

Ric Grupe

sirsloop wrote:

I wasn't gonna say anything bout that cause I know what he meant... I think that goes back to the whole "everyone smarter than everyone else " comment. Well if you look at the number, its the largest... so maybe he was just making a comment about the numerical value of the aperture setting.

Yeah....let's kick him while he's down! That'll learn him real good.