# The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

I used to use the venerable 100-400 for wildlife and bird shots. After I bought the 70-200 f2.8 II I started to use that, coupled with the 2x III extender, for the same purposes. I had read mostly negative reviews about extenders, but, to my amazement, the images I get out of this combo are nothing short of astonishing. IQ is equal, or even superior, to the one produced by the 100-400. Autofocus speed, however, takes a hit, which is visible. Still, that to me seems to be a bit faster than the autofocus speed on the 100-400. I'm tempted to use the combo, instead of the 100-400, now, but its weight discourages me to do that, if I'm shooting without a tripod. What do you guys think?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2013)

I am in the process of making the same decision myself. I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm. My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo. I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 9, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> I used to use the venerable 100-400 for wildlife and bird shots. After I bought the 70-200 f2.8 II I started to use that, coupled with the 2x III extender, for the same purposes. I had read mostly negative reviews about extenders, but, to my amazement, the images I get out of this combo are nothing short of astonishing. IQ is equal, or even superior, to the one produced by the 100-400. Autofocus speed, however, takes a hit, which is visible. Still, that to me seems to be a bit faster than the autofocus speed on the 100-400. I'm tempted to use the combo, instead of the 100-400, now, but its weight discourages me to do that, if I'm shooting without a tripod. What do you guys think?



I have the same combo Dave. I love them both but when I'm shooting birds and such, I usually grab my 100-400mm with my 5D MkIII.

I used to use my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II on my 7D more than my 100-400mm but after using the focus software on both, my 100-400mm became like a brand new lens to me, nailing focus very accurately and leaving me very, very pleased! 

Today I shot with both, so I'm going to be paying a little more attention in post to compare and see what I like better. I was shooting a soccer match and used each lens about 1/2 the game... 

I started with the 100-400mm and switched at half time to the 70-200mm. I didn't use my extender, I wanted to see if I lost anything in cropping and still gained anything in IQ.

Right away, I saw a significant difference on the screen on camera. The IQ and DR seemed better with the 70-200mm but I'll arrest final judgement till after I get them on my pc for processing... 

I've just really loved my 100-400mm again after running it through ;D FoCal...


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I am in the process of making the same decision myself. I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm. My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo. I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).





> If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II



That has been my thought as well... enjoying as I do, nonetheless!


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I am in the process of making the same decision myself. I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm. My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo. I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).



Well, Neuro, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one in my predicament. 8) ... I was thinking, more or less, along the same lines. ... In the near future, I plan on getting the 300 f2.8 IS II, too.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> DaveMiko said:
> 
> 
> > I used to use the venerable 100-400 for wildlife and bird shots. After I bought the 70-200 f2.8 II I started to use that, coupled with the 2x III extender, for the same purposes. I had read mostly negative reviews about extenders, but, to my amazement, the images I get out of this combo are nothing short of astonishing. IQ is equal, or even superior, to the one produced by the 100-400. Autofocus speed, however, takes a hit, which is visible. Still, that to me seems to be a bit faster than the autofocus speed on the 100-400. I'm tempted to use the combo, instead of the 100-400, now, but its weight discourages me to do that, if I'm shooting without a tripod. What do you guys think?
> ...



+1 ... I love my 100-400, too, Krob. To be honest, I don't really feel like parting with it. But, I shall see.


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 9, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > DaveMiko said:
> ...



Indeed! It is a bit of a dilemma! :-\


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2013)

Here's how I figure it...the 100-400 is ~7.5" long. The 70-200 II + 2xIII is ~10" long....just like the 300/2.8 II (with the hood reversed).


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's how I figure it...the 100-400 is ~7.5" long. The 70-200 II + 2xIII is ~10" long....just like the 300/2.8 II (with the hood reversed).



: ... And I was enlightened. 8)


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> DaveMiko said:
> 
> 
> > Krob78 said:
> ...



Decisions, decisions ... !!!! ??? ??? : :


----------



## canon1dxman (Nov 9, 2013)

It's a common predicament. I bought my 100-400 in 2005 because my 50-500 Sigma was wrecked after someone tried to steal it and it smashed to the ground. i needed a replacement quickly because I shoot a lot of cricket and we were about to stuff the Aussies and the insurance was advising a few more days to settle!

That lens went all over the world with me and i loved it. The "upgrade" bug got to me and I sold it towards the cost of a Sigma 120-300 Sport earlier this year. to use with my 1DX. Great lens optically but impractical (weight and bulk) so I tried the 70-200 ISII with a 1.4X but the improvement was minimal so I am thinking of buying another 100-400!!!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 9, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> I used to use the venerable 100-400 for wildlife and bird shots. After I bought the 70-200 f2.8 II I started to use that, coupled with the 2x III extender, for the same purposes. I had read mostly negative reviews about extenders, but, to my amazement, the images I get out of this combo are nothing short of astonishing. IQ is equal, or even superior, to the one produced by the 100-400. Autofocus speed, however, takes a hit, which is visible. Still, that to me seems to be a bit faster than the autofocus speed on the 100-400. I'm tempted to use the combo, instead of the 100-400, now, but its weight discourages me to do that, if I'm shooting without a tripod. What do you guys think?



I agree with your analysis. I returned my 100-400 in favor of the 70-200 with 2x and 1.4 extenders. The AF lock on the 70-200 is much better. I discovered that the 100-400 wide open suffers from coma issues and the AF system has some trouble with that. The 70-200 is pretty sharp all the way open and allows the AF system to do a better phase detect on edges. I believe the AF is slightly faster too but difference is really not noticeable. What is noticeable is that I had more keepers and less missed shots due to AF hunting. You can also just use the 70-200 as a portrait lens. The combos give many more options.


----------



## Rockets95 (Nov 9, 2013)

I tried the 7D / 70-200 f2.8 IS II / 2X III combination. Intitial shots showed severe Front Focus Issues, so I exchanged that extender for another. I really wanted this combination to work for me, so I tackled lens Microadjustment. What I discovered was that at 400mm, the setup was fairly accurate, (although also somewhat inconsistant) with little or no adjustment needed, but at 200mm I needed to adjust focusing to +12 on the -20 to +20 scale. I decided this was not going to work for me, so I returned the second extender.

The reason I purchased the 70-200 in the first place over the 100-400, was I felt I could use the 2X extender to get to 400mm. Eventually I will probably end up getting the 100-400.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

canon1dxman said:


> ... so I am thinking of buying another 100-400!!!



+1 8)



Rockets95 said:


> ... Eventually I will probably end up getting the 100-400.



+1 8)


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> DaveMiko said:
> 
> 
> > I used to use the venerable 100-400 for wildlife and bird shots. After I bought the 70-200 f2.8 II I started to use that, coupled with the 2x III extender, for the same purposes. I had read mostly negative reviews about extenders, but, to my amazement, the images I get out of this combo are nothing short of astonishing. IQ is equal, or even superior, to the one produced by the 100-400. Autofocus speed, however, takes a hit, which is visible. Still, that to me seems to be a bit faster than the autofocus speed on the 100-400. I'm tempted to use the combo, instead of the 100-400, now, but its weight discourages me to do that, if I'm shooting without a tripod. What do you guys think?
> ...



The fact that, as you mention, the 70-200 f2.8 IS II is a newer lens and it gives more flexibility of use, makes me lean towards using it more than the 100-400.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 10, 2013)

(Long time CR lurker/reader, first time poster)



neuroanatomist said:


> I am in the process of making the same decision myself. I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm. My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo. I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).



I had+have both, and got the 70-200 II plus TCs as a replacement for my 100-400, which I upgraded to a Sigma 120-300 OS as the main tele and made use of the same TCs. Sold the 100-400 (and 70-200 mk1) to cover some of the cost and obviously don't need to keep them anymore.

For the more travel situations I took the 70-200 II combo and I like using a shoulder bag (Crumpler 7MDH in this case). However the portability advantage of the 100-400mm soon became very apparent. As someone who is:
- more of a walking casual birder
- someone who prefers not walking around with a tele on the streets overseas; but still wanting "local bird shots" there
- just having a camera ready to go, e.g. in the car, or how I used to work next to an airport for the odd plane spotting
...
The constant assembly and dis-assembly of the setup was just annoying. To the point where I eventually picked up the 100-400 again when one came up for a decent price second-hand.

At the 400mm end (my copies anyway) the IQ is pretty much equivalent, slight edge to the 100-400. AF wise the 100-400mm "turns" slightly slower but is far more reliable for me. The 70-200 combo can suddenly just start hunting randomly in all but the best light. Weightwise, well, I've never been one to see the need for a tripod for a 70-200/100-400/50-500 style lens.
Obviously the 7-2 is a killer 70-200 and also a killer 280mm/4. But not exactly doing "wildlife" there typically lol.

TLDR - the portability is the winner for me ... and I do hope any new 100-400 II can maintain that.


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 10, 2013)

dufflover said:


> (Long time CR lurker/reader, first time poster)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the feedback Duff! Hmm, makes me think I should keep both! I'll just have to do some testing as well... I've been thinking about it for a long time but haven't been able to quite get there... 

I hate selling a lens and then wishing I never had! 

All the best and welcome to the forum!


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 10, 2013)

I went through a similar thought process when the 70-200 MKII first came out. I'd recently purchased a 300 (MkI, the MkII wasn't out) and was using that with a 1.4x extender, so the 100-400 was getting limited use. It didn't quite go to plan though, as the funds form the 100-400 went on a 24 f/1.4 MkII instead, then the next set of funds went on the 5D MkIII . Eventually, I did get the 70-200 MkII last January, just before going to Finland and I recently got the 2x MkIII extender. I haven't tested fully, but so far I am happy with the results. My reasoning was that the 70-200 could double up for use in low light (albeit shorter), so was more flexible for my use. I think the weight difference between the two is minimal (especially when used to carrying the 300). When I need to travel a bit lighter, I have the 70-200, if I need higher IQ or more responsive AF, then I have the 300, although, I would like something longer, so that I don't have to use an extender as much, but my funds have been diverted to something else instead.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Nov 10, 2013)

I have some funds coming in for an article with pictures I sold. I will use part of those to get the 2x extender to my 70-200 2.8 II. I can't spend too much on gear as it's only a hobby so I will have to make do with that. I travelled last year with that combo, although the MkI 70-200, on motorbike and did fine. I don't mind weight and size very much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2013)

dufflover said:


> For the more travel situations I took the 70-200 II combo and I like using a shoulder bag (Crumpler 7MDH in this case). However the portability advantage of the 100-400mm soon became very apparent.
> 
> TLDR - the portability is the winner for me ...



When I want portable, I'll often sacrifice 100mm on the long end, and take my 70-300L.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 10, 2013)

I went through the same dilemma ... so I thought and thought and thought, only to end up selling my EF 100-400 L IS and getting 2 Sigma 150-500 OS lenses, one for Canon and another for Nikon ... (don't ask why)


----------



## clostridium (Nov 11, 2013)

As usual I think it depends really on what you are shooting as far as wildlife. I have the 70-200/2.8 II plus the 1.4 and 2 TC's and also have the good old 100-400. I like both of them a lot depending on the application.

There is no doubt that at the shorter end the 70-200 smokes the 100-400 though honestly unless the shot needs the 2.8 or 4.0 you can't tell the difference unless you start pixel peeping a bunch - the biggest difference for me is the AF and the significantly improved IS. 

If you are looking at the longer end (200-400) as others have said the quality of the 70-200 with TC's is very good and probably better with a 1.4x and roughly equivalent with a 2x. The problem is that once you put the 2x TC on the 70-200 you lose your flexibility on the wide end without swapping out TC's. If you are in an adverse environment or need rapid flexibility in focal length that could be a real issue.

If the light is going to be potentially lower you are better off with the 70-200 +/- the 1.4x and cropping some. The wider lens and the better IS makes a big difference in this setting. On safari trips I make sure I have a body with the 70-200/2.8 mounted in the early morning or late evenings where the 100-400 would struggle to AF and require significantly greater ISO.

Of course if you have a crop body the variables move a bit so bear that in mind. The 100-400 is the jack of all trades master of none. It is all about compromises but it has so much flexibility that it stays relevant even 15 years after it was released. I eagerly await the new version assuming I can afford it which seems unlikely.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 11, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I went through the same dilemma ... so I thought and thought and thought, only to end up selling my EF 100-400 L IS and getting 2 Sigma 150-500 OS lenses, one for Canon and another for Nikon ... (don't ask why)



That's out of the question for me. I would never do that. As far as myself is concerned, I think that the logo "Canon" means the foremost quality possible, and that the red ring is almost the equivalent of the Holy Grail. You see, there's a reason why they say: You get what you pay for!!!!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 11, 2013)

I sold my 100-400L and 400mm f5.6L after testing my 70-200II LIS and 2x TC together.
Optically, the 70-200 combo is very strong. The IS is better and the AF is a little slower but more accurate.
Generally it's better to use a native lens instead of converters....but with such a sharp lens like the 70-200, it's not a problem. The 70-200 combo is heavier and more bulky.


----------



## mhvogel.de (Nov 11, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> ...What do you guys think?


maybe the comparison (pls. copy the whole link in your browser):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

helps you to make the desicion (although it's with the II-version of the extender).

the 1.4 extender clearly is less of a comromise (img-quality-wise), but 280mm might be a little short.

the 100-400 is not a bad lens, especially if we look at the price. resale-value (%) might be bigger then the one of the extender only.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 11, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > I went through the same dilemma ... so I thought and thought and thought, only to end up selling my EF 100-400 L IS and getting 2 Sigma 150-500 OS lenses, one for Canon and another for Nikon ... (don't ask why)
> ...


I agree with you, for the most part ... I prefer sticking to Canon but there are times, when I buy from other manufacturers ... I'm not recommending Sigma to you or anyone else who is willing to pay for the 100-400 L, just sharing what I did ... but, I did get 2 Sigma 150-500 OS lenses for the price of one Canon 100-400 L IS, nevertheless I get around 85% of the image quality of 100-400 L, with the Sigma lens ... so I'd say I got more than my money's worth.


----------



## Lurker (Nov 11, 2013)

I personally don't care for the ergonomics of the 70-200 on the 2x. With the lens and weight so far forward I have to have my hand extended too far to get proper balance and to reach the controls. This makes it hard to hand hold and it even seems clumsy on a tripod/monopod.

I shoot birds more than anything else so I found I was @ 400 most of the time so I gave up the 100-400 and bought the 400 f/5.6.


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 11, 2013)

400mm isn't often enough reach for me, even with the ability to crop my ff images fairly strong. Often times, the AF just isn't enough if my subject is a little further. 

Why not an extender on the 100-400mm? The Mk III now AF's at f/8... has anyone used that combo? Save some money over keeping all my lenses and buying a 500mm or a 600mm... no? Would IQ be that much more deteriorated? 

Just wondering! :


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 11, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> 400mm isn't often enough reach for me, even with the ability to crop my ff images fairly strong. Often times, the AF just isn't enough if my subject is a little further.
> 
> Why not an extender on the 100-400mm? The Mk III now AF's at f/8... has anyone used that combo? Save some money over keeping all my lenses and buying a 500mm or a 600mm... no? Would IQ be that much more deteriorated?
> 
> Just wondering! :


 
Its usable with a 1.4X extender, I prefer that over my 70-200 with two extenders.

400mm is often not enough for small birds.

Here is one with my 100-400L from fairly close (~20 ft) with a 1.4X and 5D MK III. Even so, its cropped a lot.

There is some movement of the leaves, I think it was wind. Lens was wide open and 1/500 exposure. ISO 100. I could have stopped it down or used a faster shutter by jumping to ISO 400, but there was little time, since small birds move around quickly. I was photographing and comparing a SX50 with my 100-400L + extender when he flew up to our crab apple tree, was there for a couple of minutes. There were a pair of them around for a few weeks.







Here is the female taken with the Canon SX50 HS. If you need portable and have good light, its excellent, but the zoom moves too fast, and its hard to accurately frame a small bird. I cropped the edges away.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 11, 2013)

Maybe it has already been mentioned, but why not the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM?

Excellent IQ & IS comparable to the 70-200, better than the 100-400 - not quite as much range. But significantly shorter and lighter than both of the other options you listed. Could be a more practical lens out in the field.

If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.

The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 11, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Maybe it has already been mentioned, but why not the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM?
> 
> Excellent IQ & IS comparable to the 70-200, better than the 100-400 - not quite as much range. But significantly shorter and lighter than both of the other options you listed. Could be a more practical lens out in the field.
> 
> If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.



Mentioned by me...and that's why I also have the 70-300L.


----------



## WPJ (Nov 12, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Maybe it has already been mentioned, but why not the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM?
> 
> Excellent IQ & IS comparable to the 70-200, better than the 100-400 - not quite as much range. But significantly shorter and lighter than both of the other options you listed. Could be a more practical lens out in the field.
> 
> ...


 controversial yes, but I'm in the love it camp, push pull is just so intuitive and natural to me.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 12, 2013)

Yeah love it or hate it thing. I love it. Overall don't care; I can use both pretty much fine.

Personally I didn't think there was enough difference between 200 and 300 for the 70-300 L and didn't see the point when it was also f/5.6; rather have 400mm then. Luckily (?) my 100-400 is reasonably good for me to not wish I had extra sharpness like I'm sure the 300 would have.


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 12, 2013)

WPJ said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it has already been mentioned, but why not the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM?
> ...





> The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).



Oh, and twice the reach...


----------



## clostridium (Nov 12, 2013)

Ruined said:


> ...
> 
> If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.
> 
> The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).



Others have pointed this out as well but the lens differentiates itself by having twice the reach as the 70-200 and 33% more reach than the 70-300. And the 70-300 can't mount Canon TC's (not sure what quality is with alternatives - might not be bad) while the 100-400 can and still AF on a 5d3 and still provide decent quality. 

And the push-pull isn't really controversial - you either like it or you don't. If you like it you are happy and don't care what the rest of the world thinks about it. If you don't like it you don't get the lens. I personally like it.

It all comes back to what you are doing with it. If you need the 400mm reach for your application, the 70-300L will leave you dissatisfied even thought it is a great lens. If you only occasionally need the reach perhaps you can get by with 70-200/2.8 plus some TC's but that involves compromises you have to be OK with (I agree that ergonomics of 2x on 70-200/2.8 are not great, uncomfortable to carry).

The 100-400 is a compromise lens. You can find other lenses that will beat it at each and every focal length but there aren't many options that provide the range and flexibility in one lens. That's why it continues to sell well. Lenses are just tools and just collecting all the best ones is not the recipe for happiness or success in your photography. You have to get the ones that meet your needs.


----------



## pharp (Nov 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm. My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo.



I wonder if a retractable prime would be a hit? A 400mm lens that folds down to 7" - I can see some possibilities if also lighter and faster than the 100-400 @ 400.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 14, 2013)

That last one won't be possible, if you mean keeping with a 70-200 style size. (is that 7"?)
As you know a 400/4 would and has that large front element. At that size collapsible is somewhat redundant (and not cheap as it is lol)


----------



## pharp (Nov 14, 2013)

dufflover said:


> That last one won't be possible, if you mean keeping with a 70-200 style size. (is that 7"?)
> As you know a 400/4 would and has that large front element. At that size collapsible is somewhat redundant (and not cheap as it is lol)



Of course its possible - the 100-400 is quite compact folded. The question is; would a similar style that ISN'T a zoom, but just a 400 prime that is maybe a little faster (or even just 5.6) and lighter (@400) than the zoom version have any traction? (It wouldn't be redundant and could be made cheaper LOL!) I think compact carry size of the 75-300L and 100-400L appeals to many - why not try it on the primes? The 400 f/5.6 is a nice lens - would anyone prefer the same lens that is foldable?


----------



## dufflover (Nov 14, 2013)

Yep that's all I meant; the "faster" bit. It won't be able to go faster than f/5.6 without that big front element.
I'm all for the retractable prime too though! Have always pondered if such a lens would ever exist but kinda gave up on that because unfortunately I reckon it won't have much traction. Like "what's wrong with the 100-400 now?". I can't really disagree with that either if they make a MkII which is up-there in sharpness like the 70-200 II increase but maintaining a similar collapsible form factor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2013)

pharp said:


> I wonder if a retractable prime would be a hit? A 400mm lens that folds down to 7" - I can see some possibilities if also lighter and faster than the 100-400 @ 400.



My guess is that it would be a non-starter. But Canon contunies to patent now DO elements and lens designs, and one of the key advantages of that technology is that is results in physically shorter lenses for a given focal length (e.g. the 400/4 DO is shorter than the 300/2.8 and 400/5.6 lenses).


----------



## Ruined (Nov 14, 2013)

clostridium said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That is true, but the 100-400 also approaches the 70-200+2xTC in weight and size. It is also less sharp than both the 70-200L and 70-300L, while being larger and heavier than the 70-300L.



> And the push-pull isn't really controversial - you either like it or you don't. If you like it you are happy and don't care what the rest of the world thinks about it. If you don't like it you don't get the lens. I personally like it.



You kind of just defined controversial 



> It all comes back to what you are doing with it. If you need the 400mm reach for your application, the 70-300L will leave you dissatisfied even thought it is a great lens.



Maybe not. Would you rather have a 70-200mm f/4L or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non-L? The latter has 100mm more reach but is not as sharp. The same could be said about the 100-400L vs 70-300L. Reach is not always better if it means sacrificing image quality.



> If you only occasionally need the reach perhaps you can get by with 70-200/2.8 plus some TC's but that involves compromises you have to be OK with (I agree that ergonomics of 2x on 70-200/2.8 are not great, uncomfortable to carry).



Or you could buy a 70-300L, have something of much more compact size and lesser weight than either of those two. And, when you need the 400mm reach, you crop in post. The point is instead of another monster sized lens you have something a bit more managable that is also sharper than the 100-400L.



> The 100-400 is a compromise lens. You can find other lenses that will beat it at each and every focal length but there aren't many options that provide the range and flexibility in one lens. That's why it continues to sell well. Lenses are just tools and just collecting all the best ones is not the recipe for happiness or success in your photography. You have to get the ones that meet your needs.



This is true, everyone has their own opinions and preference, of course


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Would you rather have a 70-200mm f/4L or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non-L? The latter has 100mm more reach but is not as sharp. The same could be said about the 100-400L vs 70-300L. Reach is not always better if it means sacrificing image quality.



Your metaphor leaves sonething to be desired. You can't really compare the IQ of the 100-400 @ 400mm with the IQ of the 70-300 non-L @ 300mm (as an analogy to the 100-400L vs the 70-300L). Well, I suppose you can, but it's a little like comparing the prowess of the 10th place NFL team with your town's peewee football league - technically possible, but not very meaningful.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Would you rather have a 70-200mm f/4L or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non-L? The latter has 100mm more reach but is not as sharp. The same could be said about the 100-400L vs 70-300L. Reach is not always better if it means sacrificing image quality.
> ...



I used an extreme analogy just to note that reach is not everything 

And it is true that the 70-300L is sharper. Yes, not as extreme difference, but it is still sharper. So perhaps if you needed to crop a little on a long shot it would not be as big of a deal...


----------



## clostridium (Nov 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> clostridium said:
> 
> 
> > > And the push-pull isn't really controversial - you either like it or you don't. If you like it you are happy and don't care what the rest of the world thinks about it. If you don't like it you don't get the lens. I personally like it.
> ...



I didn't actually.

I'm assuming that most people don't have a debate with themselves about whether they like something. They either do or they don't. Controversial means you have to debate something with others. So as I said, you either like it or you don't. There should be no internal controversy about this. You rent it or try it at a store and make your decision. End of any controversy right there unless you really care what you friends think about your lenses. I personally don't.



> Or you could buy a 70-300L, have something of much more compact size and lesser weight than either of those two. And, when you need the 400mm reach, you crop in post. The point is instead of another monster sized lens you have something a bit more managable that is also sharper than the 100-400L.



Cropping to get range is not a free thing to do. You lose quality when you do that. If you are only occasionally needing 400mm this may be a good compromise. If you are frequently needing 400mm it is not a good compromise. This gets back to my point that what lens you need all comes down to what you are going to use it for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> And it is true that the 70-300L is sharper. Yes, not as extreme difference, but it is still sharper. So perhaps if you needed to crop a little on a long shot it would not be as big of a deal...



True. But as Picard said, "The line must be drawn here. This far, no further." I use the 100-400mm when the 600 is too big to bring, and if I brought it, it would probably have had the 1.4xIII on it for shooting birds. When one should be using 840mm, using 300mm and cropping isn't ideal... 

OTOH, for family outings, the 70-300L is great. It's smaller, lighter, and 70mm means I don't have to be too far away, while 100mm is less convenient.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I am in the process of making the same decision myself. I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm. My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo. I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).



Ok, I've given the 70-200 II + 2xIII a shakedown for routine use, and I'm keeping the 100-400 (for now...if I'm $1K shy of the funds for the 300/2.8 II, it'll go, or if there's an updated 100-400). 

The IQ is fine, there are two issues for me. The first is handling - the combo is not very convenient to carry. I normally retract the 100-400, the push-pull means racking it out is very fast, and I do that automatically as I raise the camera. The 70-200 + 2x is front-heavy, and also doesn't balance well on the BR strap, so it bounces around more. I can balance it by sliding the lens plate to the opposite end, but that defeats the anti-twist (not a big deal, it didn't twist anyway), but also means it has to be loosened and moved again to unmount the lens, else the plate hits the body. 

The other issue was the AF - the combo is slower than the 100-400, noticeable when it racks out to infinity hunting...and it seemed to hunt more often. The 70-200+2x did fine in good light, but in poorer light with a complex subject (bird in tree branches) or backlit subject, it would hunt more than the 100-400, and sometimes miss focus locking at all, where the 100-400 would have often locked. Those are situations where the 100-400 has some problems, but the 70-200 + 2x was worse.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I am in the process of making the same decision myself. I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm. My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo. I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).
> ...



These are the same problems I have with my combo 70-200 f2.8 IS II+2x extender Mk III, so, just as you, I plan on keeping my 100-400 around.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 15, 2013)

Cool good to know my experiences are experienced by others as well then! (I often read more about how it's better in every way including the AF)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I am in the process of making the same decision myself. I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm. My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo. I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).
> ...



I think individual lens variation might be the key point here. No two lenses are the same unfortunatly. The AF on my old 400mm f5.6 L was slightly better than with my 70-200 LIS II and a 2x mkII. But, it wasn't enough to justify owning both. So I sold the 400mm f5.6 L to fund a different lens purchase.


----------



## greger (Dec 13, 2013)

I am beginning to think the 2X extender is a thing to be used if it means getting a pic or not. The 1.4 dose not degrade
the pic where the 2X can. I think when the 100-400 is upgraded it will sell better than vs 1 which sells quite well now.
I will probably upgrade to vs ll when it won't cost me too much to trade in my lens for the new one.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I am in the process of making the same decision myself. I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm. My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo. I intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).
> ...


Agreed! My 100-400 is sitting quite comfortably in my bag right now with no worries other than will she be upgraded for the Ver. II? I go to it 75% more than I do my 70-200 II right now and have ever since grabbing the 5D III last year. 

When I had my 7D I seemed to use my 70-200 II moreso than the 100-400. Not so much anymore! I've even thought of letting the 70-200 II go, in order to assist with funding a 300 f/2.8 or the new 500...


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 13, 2013)

I agree with everyone on the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III. It's a great combo when you want to travel light, but not something you'd want to rely on as your standard set up. All of the 70-200s, esp. the 4 IS & 2.8 IS II, go extremely well with the 1.4x, but the 2x adds a lot of length and makes for an awkward set up.

My current wildlife set up of the 70-200 f2.8 II, 300 f2.8 II IS, and both Mk III extenders is a dream (5 years in the making) and I typically have the 1.4x on the 70-200 and the 2x on the 300 when I'm out shooting. This set up gives me so much flexibility with only two lenses:
70-200
98-280
300
140-400
420
600

The 100-400 + 1.4x gives you similar range if you're looking for small & compact, but you give up speed & quality.


----------



## nc0b (Dec 22, 2013)

Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6. I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 22, 2013)

nc0b said:


> Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6. I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.


sucking air into your camera body? Do tell how?


----------



## DaveMiko (Dec 23, 2013)

nc0b said:


> Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6. I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.



Have you actually tested for yourself the 100-400 mounted on any DLSR or are you just conjecturing, based on hearsay "evidence"? I've used my 100-400 for more than 3 years (4 years in 2014) in all sorts of environments, dusty and less dusty, such as, deserts, mountain, wetland, wildlife reserve, savannah, steppes and never had any issues with it causing dust/dirt to accumulate on the sensors of my 5D Mark III and my ex-7D (I sold it). I also used it recently mounted on my 1DX, which I purchased before going on a safari trip in Kenya. I failed to notice any issues with dust settling on the 1DX's sensor.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 23, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> nc0b said:
> 
> 
> > Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6. I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.
> ...



There have been lots of discussions about this. Consensus seems to be it's an internet myth. The push-pull design seems like it should suck air into the lens, but there is little to no evidence it is any worse than a twist zoom. It has been pointed out that no lens can form a perfect vacuum, or else it would be impossible to zoom. 



WPJ said:


> sucking air into your camera body? Do tell how?


Yeah, I'm wondering about that too. Usually, people claim it sucks air into the lens. (see above)


----------



## WPJ (Dec 24, 2013)

unfocused said:


> DaveMiko said:
> 
> 
> > nc0b said:
> ...



thanks unfocused, again we have run into the internet smack which cannot be backed up by facts. One day tye internet was extremely useful now nt so much....more like a public bitch session .....hahhaha..

enjoy the night everyone..


----------



## candc (Dec 24, 2013)

logic would say that non extending type zooms are more resistant to dust entering than pumper/extending types. although this may be true i think that in practice it is when you are changing lenses that you get dust in the camera. although air is pumped in and out like a bellows the seals seam to keep the dust out. i still like non extending types but i wouldn't worry about it too much as long as the tolerances and fit are good.


----------



## canon1dxman (Dec 24, 2013)

I bought a 100-400 way back in 2005 and it has been on countless safaris since. Used on 2 x 1D, 7D and 1Dx. Never had an issue with dust or anything else. I did actually sell it this year when I bought the new Sigma Sport 120-300. If the mk 2 version eventually appears, I imagine ordering that but in the meantime, I might just buy another used example as it was so convenient. I have a 70-200/II plus converters but there is something nice about that old lump of a lens.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 24, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Thanks, this is interesting to me because I'm about to get a 5DMkIII to replace my 7D and say farewell to the possibility of using a crop sensor to fake 'reach'. 

I'm trying to consider the repercussions this will have on my lens collection and possible future upgrade path. and it does get expensive to go beyond 400 mm on full frame and retain good image quality especially without carrying around monstrous lenses... so far it seems the 300 f/2.8 + 2x TC is a really great/best option, but I may have my eye on the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports lens if that plays well with teleconverters. Let's hope I find I can live without 400mm+


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 24, 2013)

canon1dxman said:


> I bought a 100-400 way back in 2005 and it has been on countless safaris since. Used on 2 x 1D, 7D and 1Dx. Never had an issue with dust or anything else. I did actually sell it this year when I bought the new Sigma Sport 120-300. If the mk 2 version eventually appears, I imagine ordering that but in the meantime, I might just buy another used example as it was so convenient. I have a 70-200/II plus converters but there is something nice about that old lump of a lens.



Interesting you should mention the Sigma. How does it play on full frame with teleconverters? Have you used with any ie Canon/Sigma? Please tell.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 24, 2013)

Any lens that extends when focusing or zooming will suck in air and then pump it out. The real question is where does the air enter/exit... If it is entering/exiting along the lens barrel then there is no flow of air into the camera body and as a result, no big concerns about dust on the sensor.


----------



## candc (Dec 24, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> canon1dxman said:
> 
> 
> > I bought a 100-400 way back in 2005 and it has been on countless safaris since. Used on 2 x 1D, 7D and 1Dx. Never had an issue with dust or anything else. I did actually sell it this year when I bought the new Sigma Sport 120-300. If the mk 2 version eventually appears, I imagine ordering that but in the meantime, I might just buy another used example as it was so convenient. I have a 70-200/II plus converters but there is something nice about that old lump of a lens.
> ...



i read that the new sigma 120-300 does not work well with the sigma converters but have not tried them. i have tried the kenko 300's and the canon iii's. both the 1.4x tc's work well without issue. the kenko/promaster 2x pro af is fast and the iq is good but it overexposes by+1 ev so thats a hassle to compensate for it when you are changing modes and when you take it on and off. the canon 2xiii is a bit slower but seems to have more accurate af and the iq is just as good or better than the kenko.

i have used the lens and tc's on both a 6d and a 70d with good results. its a really versatile lens but i think its better for wildlife on a crop body. at least for small and distant animals and birds in decent light.

it may not be monstrous but its pretty big and its heavy (7 1/2 lbs). if you are going to get it then get the usb dock as well. it allows you to customize the af speed, focus limits, is behavior, ad af tuning.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 24, 2013)

candc said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > canon1dxman said:
> ...



Thanks, it's good to know the Canon TC's physically fit on the Sigma and are probably the best option I/Q wise. I have a Canon 1.4 II so not the newest iteration. Not sure if I will eventually go this path but it's best practice to be well informed beforehand


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2013)

I am off for a country walk with my grandchildren and children on this sunny Christmas morning in a few minutes. The 100-400 on my 7D (rather than the 300mm f/2.8 + TC on my damaged but functioning 5DIII) is the perfect walk-around lens in case there is some wild life. The lens when retracted is not a conspicuous monster, like the 300, and as neuro says, it quickly extends. The retracting style of the current 100-400mm is a really great feature.

My grandson will take my SX50.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2013)

Successful morning. Great walk with the family and just before reaching home on the way back a young heron decided to pose (7D, 100-400 at 300mm, f/5.6, 1/1000, iso 640, 100% crop, processed in DxO 9).


----------



## DaveMiko (Dec 25, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Successful morning. Great walk with the family and just before reaching home on the way back a young heron decided to pose (7D, 100-400 at 300mm, f/5.6, 1/1000, iso 640, 100% crop, processed in DxO 9).



Nice work, Alan.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Dec 26, 2013)

Not sure about widlife shooting but in my experience with the 1D4 shooting fast action outdoor sports, the 70-200 2.8L II + 2X TC outperformed the 100-400 in IQ and speed. Additionally, zooming in/out with the 70-200 + 2X TC was much easier than a push/pull zoom that added unwanted movement to the camera even with a Gimbal head.

I'm about ready to sell my 100-400 since it seldom gets used.

Hope this helps.

A post Merry Christmas to all the CR mod's and forum participants. Wishing you all the very best of the new year!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 26, 2013)

MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> Not sure about widlife shooting but in my experience with the 1D4 shooting fast action outdoor sports, the 70-200 2.8L II + 2X TC outperformed the 100-400 in IQ and speed. Additionally, zooming in/out with the 70-200 + 2X TC was much easier than a push/pull zoom that added unwanted movement to the camera even with a Gimbal head.



-1 - the great plus of the 100-400mm is as a walk-around lens for wild-life and safari or air shows and not as something to be plonked onto a tripod. When you are hand holding, movement of the camera is not a big deal.



MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> A post Merry Christmas to all the CR mod's and forum participants. Wishing you all the very best of the new year!


+1


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Any lens that extends when focusing or zooming will suck in air and then pump it out. The real question is where does the air enter/exit... If it is entering/exiting along the lens barrel then there is no flow of air into the camera body and as a result, no big concerns about dust on the sensor.



Of more concern is the possibility of accidentally pumping warm moist air into cold optics. That could cause internal condensation which would be difficult to remove. I opted for the 70-200 with both extenders. Tried several copies of the 100-400 and was not entirely impressed from many fronts. However depending on requirements and budget, it may be an option for those that don't mind things like coma when used wide open.

I now also have big primes to suite my needs but the 100-400 was never included in my suite.


----------

