# EF 100-400mm ii vs. EF 200-400 with 1.4 TC



## LovePhotography (Jan 15, 2015)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

Based on test results, size, other attributes (range, external vs internal TC) and price, if you were in the market for a lens of this type, which would you buy? The new 100-400 or the 200-400 1.4?


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 15, 2015)

My vote is for the 200-400 1.4x for AF and this at 800mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

At shorter FL, the edge is mostly in lower CA, vignetting and distortion, but I agree it's a small margin.


----------



## Click (Jan 15, 2015)

The 200-400 1.4x ... if money is not a problem.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 15, 2015)

My vote is for the 100-400 unless Mac buys me the 200-400 and carries it for me.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Jan 15, 2015)

money not an issue = 200-400
reality = 100-400 (I went with this one)


----------



## aldvan (Jan 15, 2015)

It's very impressive that, also in comparison with a top range lens like the 100-400 II (I just received it and it is outstanding...), the 200-400 is able to show a considerable difference in quality...

By the way, the 200-400's longer minimal focus lenght makes the two lenses very different...


----------



## Freddie (Jan 15, 2015)

I borrowed the 200-400 11-months ago from Canon. I was lusting for it badly as I had always coveted the Nikkor zoom of the same focal length specs. I had the 200-400 for 14 days (minus shipping time) and took it to Bosqué del Apache, NM for a couple of days.
Sad to say, I fell out of lust for it after using it. It was too expensive, too large, too heavy, and too specialized for what I like to do. That's not to say I couldn't use it in any way. It was just not a good fit. It could replace my 500 V.1 in some situations but not very many. That would mean it had to be an addition to rather than a replacement for anything already in the kit. Another long lens that really should be tripod mounted is not what I needed. I have shot extensively with the 600 V.1 and 800 V.1 Canon lenses and I always am happy to come back to my 500.
I now have the new 100-400 II and couldn't be happier. I think I may try the 500 V.II now as that's probably the best solution for me.


----------



## Jane (Jan 16, 2015)

I have both. I use them on very different occasions. Your question doesn't define the purpose for which you would want the lens. Without a purpose/need the answer is neither.


----------



## rpt (Jan 16, 2015)

Although I voted for the 100-400, if money was not the limiting criteria, I would get both. The 100-400 would be used more.


----------



## Jane (Jan 16, 2015)

I use the 100-400 II with 1.4X when I am walking around looking for birds/wildlife. When I go by vehicle, the 200-400 is my choice. The 200-400 is just too heavy to carry for long. Now what about the 400 DO II? That might be a great walk-around wildlife lens at only 1lb more than the 100-400 II.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 16, 2015)

AlanF said:


> My vote is for the 100-400 unless Mac buys me the 200-400 and carries it for me.


LOL, maybe, though I have torn both of my rotator cuffs and find carrying much of anything to be a painful chore these days. I've rehabbed them before and will again, but it takes a long time 

While the weight is bad, what I really don't like is the size of 200-400 1.4x, which is why I stick with my 300 f/2.8 II. I also love shallow DOF and f/4 is acceptable, but I don't know if I'd like f/5.6 or f/8. If I could get closer to my subjects, it wouldn't matter.


----------



## LovePhotography (Jan 16, 2015)

Jane said:


> I have both. I use them on very different occasions. Your question doesn't define the purpose for which you would want the lens. Without a purpose/need the answer is neither.



The purpose for the lens purchase is whatever reason you choose. For the purposes of this poll, the assumption is that most people would/could only buy only one or the other.


----------



## Mario (Jan 17, 2015)

If have tried both, it's apples and oranges, at least for wildlife.

If you're shooting mainly from hides and you don't have one of the big whites: 200-400.

If you want to walk around when shooting, or need a zoom in addition to a big white: 100-400 II.

Background blur will be nicer with the 200-400 and IQ of the 200-400 is very close to the 600 II.

You can also put an external 1.4x extender to the 200-400 and have a 280-560 F5.6, retaining the option to engage the internal 1.4x resuting in a 400-800 F8 and still be able to use AF on the higher end bodies.

Moneywise, it's also apples and oranges. If you have a big enough budget to buy the 200-400, you budget is probably healthy enough to add the 100-400 II as well .

Mario


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 17, 2015)

Would you rather have a Cadillac Escalade or a Chevy Volt, if money were no issue.
The Cadillac is larger and heavier. It uses more gas.
They will both get you where you are going.
I wonder how often this question comes up at the GM dealership.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2015)

I'd buy the 100-400 II, because I already have the 600 II.


----------



## HankMD (Jan 17, 2015)

The 200-400mm provided there's enough left for a porter or a mule.


----------



## candyman (Jan 17, 2015)

I like the fact that it is a zoom in this range (up to 400mm) with f/4
But...it would make more sense to me if I would do a lot of wildlife (not zoo) and sports. And downside is size and weight
So I would choose the 100-400 II instead.
Personally I am looking at 300 f/2.8 II or the 400 f/4 II DO....


----------



## FEBS (Jan 17, 2015)

I have the 200-400. Great lens, no regret. Flexibility with build in 1.4x is marvelous.
However, I think I also will buy the 100-400 II. As already mentioned by others, it all depends on what you want to do. On a safari, it would be for sure the 200-400. On a small travel trip, I would use the 24-105 on FF and the 100-400II on an APS or the 16-35 on FF and the 100-400II on FF, but those combinations purely based on the fact that I should keep the travel weight down.


----------



## FEBS (Jan 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd buy the 100-400 II, because I already have the 600 II.



Yes, that would be a nice combination and a logical decision. 100-400II and 600 can travel together. 200-400 and 600 is hard to do on your own.

I have the 200-400, Think about the 100-400, but if then the 600 GAS keeps pushing, the 200-400 might be sold in favor of the 600mm. But I have time for that last step, as I think we might see a new 800 (DO) in the coming years.

I will keep the 200-400 next to the 100-400II, as the last one gives me a possibility to travel light and compact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2015)

FEBS said:


> I will keep the 200-400 next to the 100-400II, as the last one gives me a possibility to travel light and compact.



For travel, I ended up preferring the more compact 70-300L, and eventually sold my (original) 100-400L.


----------



## sulla (Jan 17, 2015)

To me it is very clear: 100-400, as I simply cannot afford the 200-400.

You did not ask for it, but I would prefer the new 400 DO over the 200-400, for it is lighter, smaller and cheaper.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 17, 2015)

I´ve had the 200-400 for some time and it is a fantastic lens. As some of you may have seen from a couple of old posts, I´m using a monopod in a flag bandoleer to support the lens. I also use this with the 600mm with both the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. All weight issues goes away and it is surprisingly stable. For any shooting where you cannot zoom with your feet, having the 200-560mm zoom range available, with That IQ, is simply fantastic.

But I have ordered the new 100-400, as a compact and light weight option for hiking and travel. But it will be an addition to what I have, not a replacement. I previously had the 70-300L, but sold it because I found the long end a bit too short and it was not used much.


----------



## LovePhotography (Jan 22, 2015)

Current results- 2:1 in favor of the 100-400. That's actually better for the 200-400 than I thought it would be. I thought because of the price, weight, and size, the 100-400 would wipe it out.


----------



## Andrewccm (Jan 22, 2015)

I've used the 200-400 several times and most recently to cover the college football championship. Is it me or does that lens vignette like crazy? I was using a 1DX body that did not have the lens correction profiles loaded. The JPGs had very much a spotlight look to them with vignetting across a majority of the frame. The raw files looked fine once lens correction was applied in LR, but for this assignment I was given both the body and the lens and had to shoot JPG for the client. I was pretty disappointed. Having shot the Cotton Bowl with the same combo and in raw, it was much better. I'm just not a fan of a $11k lens requiring so much digital manipulation to be consistent across the frame.


----------



## DominoDude (Jan 22, 2015)

Andrewccm said:


> I've used the 200-400 several times and most recently to cover the college football championship. Is it me or does that lens *vignette like crazy*? I was using a 1DX body that did not have the lens correction profiles loaded. The JPGs had very much a spotlight look to them with vignetting across a majority of the frame. The raw files looked fine once lens correction was applied in LR, but for this assignment I was given both the body and the lens and had to shoot JPG for the client. I was pretty disappointed. Having shot the Cotton Bowl with the same combo and in raw, it was much better. I'm just not a fan of a $11k lens requiring so much digital manipulation to be consistent across the frame.



Can you give an example or quantify your findings? It could be interesting to see.
As far as I know the vignetting is slightly over 1 full stop in the extreme corners @400mm f/4, and @560mm f/5.6.


----------



## Jan Jasinski (Jan 23, 2015)

To my surprise, the 100-400 II was sharper than the 200-400L, especially when the 1.4x was enabled on the latter lens. This could have also been that the 200-400 was not adjusted to my 6D.
Vignetting is very visible on the 100-400 though.


----------



## Andrewccm (Jan 23, 2015)

DominoDude said:


> Andrewccm said:
> 
> 
> > I've used the 200-400 several times and most recently to cover the college football championship. Is it me or does that lens *vignette like crazy*? I was using a 1DX body that did not have the lens correction profiles loaded. The JPGs had very much a spotlight look to them with vignetting across a majority of the frame. The raw files looked fine once lens correction was applied in LR, but for this assignment I was given both the body and the lens and had to shoot JPG for the client. I was pretty disappointed. Having shot the Cotton Bowl with the same combo and in raw, it was much better. I'm just not a fan of a $11k lens requiring so much digital manipulation to be consistent across the frame.
> ...



I'll see if I can find an example when I get back to my laptop and upload a before and after.


----------



## Andrewccm (Jan 23, 2015)

Here is a before and after. One with correction via raw file in LR 5.7 and one without.

1DX, 200-400L at F4


----------



## DominoDude (Jan 23, 2015)

Thanks, AndrewCCM, for posting the examples.
OK it is clearly visible. I'm also inclined to feel that the cluster of silvery helmets at the center makes it appear as though the corners were even darker.
I'm no big fan of added vignette (in post) to most photos, but at the same time I find that the natural vignetting and distortions from a lens is part of its charm and characteristics. Here, for your purpose, I understand the removed vignette, and I would most likely do the same. (or have the body set up to apply those corrections in camera)


----------



## Andrewccm (Jan 23, 2015)

DominoDude said:


> Thanks, AndrewCCM, for posting the examples.
> OK it is clearly visible. I'm also inclined to feel that the cluster of silvery helmets at the center makes it appear as though the corners were even darker.
> I'm no big fan of added vignette (in post) to most photos, but at the same time I find that the natural vignetting and distortions from a lens is part of its charm and characteristics. Here, for your purpose, I understand the removed vignette, and I would most likely do the same. (or have the body set up to apply those corrections in camera)



Yeah.. Normally, I would have shot raw or most definitely had the profiles loaded into camera. It's like that on every photo with some more noticeable depending on framing/background than others. 

I shouldn't have just expected that Canon CPS would have had that loaded on the camera before I headed up to my shooting position. They were onsite, but I was stuck in that camera well the entire game/including halftime. Oh well, it just seems excessive for such an expensive lens. My Canon 300L F2.8 IS does much MUCH better in this regard. Heck, even my Tamron 150-600 does better. Granted, I am using them on a crop body 7D2 more often than not. On my 5D3, its a bit more noticeable, less so on my 1D3.

Thanks for the comment. Have a good upcoming weekend.

Andrew


----------



## Eldar (Jan 23, 2015)

Andrewccm said:


> I've used the 200-400 several times and most recently to cover the college football championship. Is it me or does that lens vignette like crazy? I was using a 1DX body that did not have the lens correction profiles loaded. The JPGs had very much a spotlight look to them with vignetting across a majority of the frame. The raw files looked fine once lens correction was applied in LR, but for this assignment I was given both the body and the lens and had to shoot JPG for the client. I was pretty disappointed. Having shot the Cotton Bowl with the same combo and in raw, it was much better. I'm just not a fan of a $11k lens requiring so much digital manipulation to be consistent across the frame.


I have gone through a number of my images with the 200-400 to critically asses vignetting. I have not measured it accurately, but if I had to give a number I would say that, wide open, it´s about 1 stop.


----------

