# 70-200 2.8 non is w/ 2x tele?



## 4jphotography (Sep 11, 2011)

I feel like this has been discussed, and sorry of so, but anyone know if the IQ from a 70-200 non is mark 1 w/ one of the new 2x teleconverters will rival the 100-400 on a 1 series body?
Thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2011)

No, the 100-400mm will be sharper. The 100-400mm at 400mm will also be sharper than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (which is noticeably sharper than the non-IS version) with the 2x III. If you routinely shoot at 400mm, you're best off getting a lens that natively reaches 400mm. TCs are for occasional use.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2011)

Its not bad with a TC, just not as good as a 100-400 without TC. a TC degrades the optics, no matter what lens, and all of the older 70-200 f/2.8 lenses were weak at 200mm even without a TC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2011)

If you stop down to f/11 or so, they aren't too different. But, wide open at f/5.6, the 70-200/2.8 nonIS + 2x III is pretty weak by comparison.


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 11, 2011)

The 300mm f4 IS is an awsome lens I think you should consider. You loose the zoom, and you won't reach 400m, but you'll have alot of reach and super sharp photos. So sharp you can crop to the view of a 400mm and have a better photo than with the 100-400mm or some combination of lenses and tele-converters. 

The thing you have to consider with any teleconverter is will it produce a sharper photo than simply shooting with the same lens and then just cropping?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> The 300mm f4 IS is ...So sharp you can crop to the view of a 400mm and have a better photo than with the 100-400mm



The 300/4 is a little sharper, but not _that_ much sharper - comparing the 300/4 wide open to the 100-400 @ 400mm wide open, they deliver about the same resolution in both center and borders. The 300/4 stopped down to f/5.6 is a bit sharper in the centers, but about the same at the borders. 

I agree that the 300/4 is a great lens, but really, it comes down to the focal length you need/want. I wouldn't get a lens planning to crop most of the resulting images. Also worth considering the intended subject(s) - for example, if you're shooting birds, most likely even 400mm will on APS-C will require some cropping, 300mm would require more and a correspondingly greater hit on IQ (which is why I sold my 300/4 and bought a 100-400 instead). 400mm is a break-point - a longer lens will cost you _significantly_ more (or you'll take a hit on IQ with less expensive 3rd party lenses).


----------



## Bruce Photography (Sep 12, 2011)

This will not be a direct answer to your question but I went to the 400 F5.6 to improve my 400mm sharpness from my 100-400. The prime doesn't have IS but since I use a tripod with a Wimberley for shooting birds in flight, I'm shooting at 1/1000 or faster anyway so the lack of IS isn't a problem and the prime lens is quite sharp. Depending upon my distance to subject I shoot with a 7D for long shots and a 5D2 for shorter shots. What is your intended subject? Perhaps you would miss the zoom too much. Sometimes I do so I switch back to the 100-400 again to follow in on my subjects as they get closer. I hope this helps.


----------



## TinaLovesCanon (Sep 13, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> The 300mm f4 IS is an awsome lens I think you should consider. You loose the zoom, and you won't reach 400m, but you'll have alot of reach and super sharp photos. So sharp you can crop to the view of a 400mm and have a better photo than with the 100-400mm or some combination of lenses and tele-converters.
> 
> The thing you have to consider with any teleconverter is will it produce a sharper photo than simply shooting with the same lens and then just cropping?



Agreed 300mm f4 IS is an awsome lens. My first L, and still one of my favorites.


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 13, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 300mm f4 IS is ...So sharp you can crop to the view of a 400mm and have a better photo than with the 100-400mm
> ...



I don't have a 100-400 to compare to my 300 f4, but the resolution tool over at the TheDigitalPicture tool show the 300 to be much sharper than the 100-400 at 5.6, center mid and corner. And the 70-200 2.8 looks really sad at 200, and 280, and 400 (with teleconverters) And the 300 still looks slightly better at 420mm (with a 1.4X) than the 100-400 at 400 (both at 5.6)

I can't imagine why you you'd always crop a 300mm? But I would crop if the composition could be improved. 

The 400mm 5.6 has a good reputation, but I've never used it. I am lucky enough to have a 400mm f2.8 IS from my office and that is an awesome way to go if you have the money and the back to carry it.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 15, 2011)

IMG_0474 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

I work for a newspaper. I shoot a huge amount of imagery and im also a graphic designer so most is for advertising purposes, so I dont have need for a 100-400. But i do have a 70-200mm F2.8 mark I non IS and a 2x extender mark II. 

On this occasion I was went to stalk a construction site. Reason being that we want to get as much revenue as possible from advertising, there is a supermarket war going on in a local town and two are being built at the same time each lying to us (newspaper) about how far they are from finishing construction for the Christmas period. There are also another 8 supermarkets in the town of 20,000 inhabitants so its a lot. So who ever opens first will probably have the edge. We also want to get more advertising out of them to spur the other supermarket to also advertise, win win situ, and yes it did work. The images were actually used as documents for the council too as documentary photography. So well used all round.

Anyway i took my 70-200mm and added the 2x extender I also used a crop body 40D on this occasion so i was getting about 640mm out of the lens. This was because i didnt really want to be too close and didnt really want them to see me or i would have probs been reported. Obviously stepping the lens down increases quality so this one was shot at 640mm at F8 and 1/640th to make sure it was sharp. It is very sharp in my opinion and for a document very useable. Maybe not for wildlife photography, but it is a much easier way for me to work. Its lighter means I only need three lenses with me, 10-22mm 17-55mm and the 70-200 + 2x extender to cover a broad range. Obviously when im shooting the advertising photography i dont use these but as a walk around combination its a good set up for the crop camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> I don't have a 100-400 to compare to my 300 f4, but the resolution tool over at the TheDigitalPicture tool show the 300 to be much sharper than the 100-400 at 5.6, center mid and corner. And the 70-200 2.8 looks really sad at 200, and 280, and 400 (with teleconverters) And the 300 still looks slightly better at 420mm (with a 1.4X) than the 100-400 at 400 (both at 5.6)



I agree that the 300/4 bare is sharper than the 100-400mm at either 300mm of 400mm. But I think the 100-400mm @ 400mm is slightly sharper in the center and mid-frame than the 300/4 + 1.4x II/III, and equivalent in the corners (and the corners aren't relevant if you're using a 1.6x body). Here's the link for those that want to compare for themselves.

Personally, I have a 100-400mm, had a 300/4 (and still have a 1.4x II), and I found the 100-400mm to be better at 400mm than the 300/4 + TC. 

Of the 70-200mm series of lenses, only the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II holds up decently with teleconverters. But IMO, a native lens will almost always beat a lens + TC, so if you need a focal length, get it if you can, and use extenders sparingly. The exception is lenses in a dramatically different price class, such as the new 300/2.8 II + 1.4x III, which bests the 100-400mm @ 400mm. But I will point out that design age is playing a factor there, too - the 100-400mm @ 400mm is still slightly better then the 300/2.8 MkI + 1.4x II.


----------

