# EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II vs EF 70-200mm f/2.8L + 2X III



## Sashi (Mar 19, 2016)

Hi,
Just packing for a trip to Argentina and trying to keep things light. Am trying to avoid taking both lenses and wanted to know how good the 200 with a 2X extender was compared to the new 100-400. Took some pictures to compare and the 100-400 came out sharper. Anyway, sharing the results in the event that it is useful to anyone else.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II vs EF 70-200mm f/4.0L + 2X III*

So which is it? F/4L or F/2.8 MK II. Your title and the photo title does not match.

We all know that the f/2.8L MK II with a TC is very good. The f/4L NON IS with TC's suffers at the long end considerably.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II vs EF 70-200mm f/4.0L + 2X III*



Sashi said:


> Hi,
> Just packing for a trip to Argentina and trying to keep things light. Am trying to avoid taking both lenses and wanted to know how good the 200 with a 2X extender was compared to the new 100-400. Took some pictures to compare and the 100-400 came out sharper. Anyway, sharing the results in the event that it is useful to anyone else.



same here as well. I will vote on the 100-400 that's what im going to take, I got the option of the 70-200 2.8 but nope.


----------



## Sashi (Mar 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II vs EF 70-200mm f/4.0L + 2X III*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> So which is it? F/4L or F/2.8 MK II. Your title and the photo title does not match.
> 
> We all know that the f/2.8L MK II with a TC is very good. The f/4L NON IS with TC's suffers at the long end considerably.



Oops, it should have been f2.8 in the title not f4. Thanks, corrected it. Mine is the mk I.


----------

