# 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender III vs. 100 - 400 L // Comparison?



## mhvogel.de (Aug 10, 2011)

Hey Guys:

I do have the 70-200 2.8 L IS II (ff-bodies inly) and am thinking about the following 2 options to extend my tele-range a little:
a: buy an Extender (Canon 1.4x III, maybe the 2.0x) t.b. used with my 70-200
or
b: buy a new lens: the Canon 100 - 400mm L

Does anyone have a quality-comparison (test- pics or data) of these two options.

And:
Yes, I know, that 200mm x 1.4 is less then 400.
No, it's not a budget-issue.
No I do not look for another option then stated above.

I do want the better image-quality!
Sharpness & Details are critical, potenital vignetting not that much.

Profound advises or links to data sources are welcome, thank you in advance.


----------



## canonwhore (Aug 10, 2011)

I've got the 70-200 2.8 L is II + 2.0x III extender. Yes the quality does go down a little and AF does slow down a bit. I have never used the 100-400 L so I can't compare. Here is a link to some shots I've taken with this combination so you can compare (I should also mention I scaled down these photos so quality is not as good as the original files).

70-200 with 2.0 extender
http://www.panoramio.com/user/54435/tags/Canon%20Extender%20%20EF%202%20III


----------



## lol (Aug 10, 2011)

This is a question I asked myself in a slightly different way , but one possible direct comparison is here. You can play with the settings a bit depending on the scenario you want to model. At a quick glance, there's not a lot in it comparing 280mm f/4-f/5.6 to 300mm f/5.6, but at 400mm each the 100-400L is more clearly better. However they used extender II not III so I don't know if that will make any significant real world difference.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Aug 10, 2011)

I have a 70-200mm IS II and a 2x III quality takes a pretty large hit. Basically it looks like my picture came from a crop sensor instead of full frame. It's not very sharp. I don't own a 100-400 because I'm waiting for the replacement but everything I've seen says it is better at 400mm. However, it's far more convenient to carry a 70-200 with the extender than two large/heavy telephoto lenses.

It's fine if you don't pixel peep. if you do ... here is a 100 percent crop, you can see a specular highlight on the button with no color fringing, this is also through a chain link fence. Lighting was pretty harsh.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 10, 2011)

I have the 70-200mm f2.8 non IS and the 2x extender mark II and yes it needs some sharpening but i think the quality for price/weight/handling is fantastic. Its not a perfect set up but i find very useable, most of my images go to press with no problems. The 100-400 is a great lens but i find that the 70-200mm with a 2x extender a better partnership, if you want 2.8 its there if you need more range wack the extender on, stop the lens down to F8 and its wonderful, its not too sharp at 5.6 but abit of post processing works wonders. Carrying both lenses around would be a pain in the ass in my opinion. I prefer the zoom ring on the 70-200mm rather than the push pull. Plus on a crop body the lens is a 640mm lens with the 2x extender and for that range with a small decrease in quality is worth it for me.

In a perfect world you would buy a 400mm 2.8 but they are heavy expensive and i find zooms are alot more useful when shooting for press. Also i have the Non IS and still have no problem with blur etc, its relying on skill not tech, IS is great but you pay a huge premium for it.

Tomscott


----------



## tomscott (Aug 10, 2011)

Canihaspicture said:


> I have a 70-200mm IS II and a 2x III quality takes a pretty large hit. Basically it looks like my picture came from a crop sensor instead of full frame. It's not very sharp. I don't own a 100-400 because I'm waiting for the replacement but everything I've seen says it is better at 400mm. However, it's far more convenient to carry a 70-200 with the extender than two large/heavy telephoto lenses.
> 
> It's fine if you don't pixel peep. if you do ... here is a 100 percent crop, you can see a specular highlight on the button with no color fringing, this is also through a chain link fence. Lighting was pretty harsh.



What F stop did you use here? looks like its quite open to me, especially in good light. Extenders work much better if you step it down.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Aug 10, 2011)

F/11 (keep in mind it's a 100% crop)


----------



## tomscott (Aug 10, 2011)

Ye true, tbf your probs better looking at a 66% crop its more realistic of the quality of your print. Mine are alittle soft because im using an older camera, trusty 40D waiting for a new 7D to get a decent upgrade.


----------



## bchernicoff (Aug 10, 2011)

I had a 100-400 at the same time as 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender II and did a direct comparison at 400mm. Yes, sharpness takes a hit, but considering the cost, weight, and space required to keep that lens around just for additional sharpness in the 200-400 range, I decided to sell it. I asked myself, "Am I more likely to bring one lens and through the extender in my bag, or schlep two lenses?" The answer depends on what is being shot. I only took the 100-400 to the airshow. I brought the 70-200 + extender to a pro motocross race....most of the time, the extender stayed off, but I did get some great shots with it on. I am at work now, but can update with images tonight. In the end I sold the 100-400. Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2011)

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and the Mk II versions of both 1.4x and 2x extenders, and also the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. Both 70-200mm + extender combinations produce decent images, but the IQ is better with the 100-400mm. My primary use for the 70-200 + extenders is when I want to shoot in the rain, since the combination on my 7D is weather-sealed, whereas the 100-400mm is not.

You can compare sharpness here (link goes to the 70-200 II + 2x III vs. 100-400mm @ 400mm, but you can vary that with the popups menus for focal length and aperture).


----------



## jcns (Aug 10, 2011)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml


----------



## jcns (Aug 10, 2011)

if it's an option for you, rent as needed.
I bought a used 100-400 for a great deal so I don't mind that it comes out to play only 3-5 times a year sometimes even less; it has not come out of the bag and box not even once in 2011.


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 10, 2011)

Here is the TDP link to 70-200 IS II + 2x III:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

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

Looks like the 100-400mm is slightly sharper, but the TDP test is very harsh, and I believe the differences between the two are pretty negligible. Your opinion may differ. The price, weight and size would be a determining factor if it was my choice (again, your priorities may be different). And remember you're looking at 100% crops of the center, mid-frame, and corner at TDP in a side-by-side fashion, and with similar focal lengths and f-stops I think you'd have a hard time telling the difference between the two in real-world shots.


----------



## bchernicoff (Aug 10, 2011)

Here are two pictures I shot with my 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender II. These are the original jpegs from my 7D shot with the Standard picture style.

http://photogravic.com/images/race1.jpg
http://photogravic.com/images/race2.jpg


----------



## UncleFester (Aug 11, 2011)

"No. It's not a budget issue."


----------



## epsiloneri (Aug 11, 2011)

UncleFester said:


> "No. It's not a budget issue."



Even if budget is no issue, portability could be... the 400/2.8L II weighs more than the 70-200/2.8L and 100-400/4.5-5.6L together. The mark I version is even heavier. If only the 400/5.6L had IS...


----------



## bycostello (Aug 11, 2011)

mhvogel.de said:


> I do want the better image-quality!
> Sharpness & Details are critical, potenital vignetting not that much.
> 
> Profound advises or links to data sources are welcome, thank you in advance.



the more glass you between the subject and sensor the lower the image quality... part the reason i would never use a lens filter....


----------



## mhvogel.de (Aug 11, 2011)

bchernicoff said:


> I had a 100-400 at the same time as 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender II ...... Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic lens.


Thank you for your feedback, summarizing: is there a way to describe the optical difference (regardless weight, pp)?


----------



## mhvogel.de (Aug 11, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and the Mk II....vary that with the popups menus for focal length and aperture).


Thank you! Very useful information and link!


----------



## motorhead (Aug 11, 2011)

As jcns has suggested, renting the two combinations and trying them out is the best way to make a decision. I am allways amazed how reasonable the hire charges are. 

I have both the 70-200 mk2 and the 100-400, but I don't have a 2x converter. I have used both with a 1.4x (not Canon) and personally prefer the product of the 70-200, but thats easy to say when circumstances demand a converter on the 100-400.

I feel thay are very different lenses for very different uses. I use my 70-200 much more frequently than the rather specialist 100-400 - that tends to be my motorsports lens.


----------



## ecka (Aug 11, 2011)

If $ is no issue, then I would go for the EF 300/2.8L IS USM and 1.4xTC III. This lens paired with your EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM II should cover the telephoto end well.


----------



## bchernicoff (Aug 11, 2011)

> Thank you for your feedback, summarizing: is there a way to describe the optical difference (regardless weight, pp)?



I posted links to two pictures that I took at 400mm with this combination on a crop sensor camera (7D). Notice how wide the field of view is for a picture taken at this focal length on a 7D...these guys were really far away and yet look at the detail. You can see the ripples in the air behind them caused by the bikes' hot exhaust. That is really impressive to me. I don't have the same pictures taken with the 100-400, but I would expect to see a little more detail in the graphics on the bike and jersey and a little sharper edges. I agree with what other people are saying. You should compare them yourself. If you live in a large city, there will be meetup group join. Someone will have one for you to try. Also, I live in the Washington DC area and there is almost always a 100-400 for sale here. I bought and sold mine this way. 

Warning, full-size JPEGs from 18mp camera:
http://photogravic.com/images/race1.jpg
http://photogravic.com/images/race2.jpg


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 11, 2011)

mhvogel.de said:


> No I do not look for another option then stated above.
> 
> I do want the better image-quality!


If you do not know enough to choose between these two radically different options, I would say it is appropriate to assume you also don't know enough about alternatives to lock them out. You are merely artificially limiting yourself to two inferior possibilities.

Both the 70-200 with an extender and the 100-400mm are rather suboptimal choices for this range. Even though the 100-400mm is a "dedicated" zoom, it is beaten by the rather ancient (c. 1998) 400mm f/5.6L for sheer image quality, and the loss of the first-generation IS doesn't seem all that big a problem either.

From what I have seen, other good options include:

The new Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6L gets you very close to 400mm natively. Not sure about extender compatibility.
The brand new (released June this year, or so) Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX is a fantastic lens, and gets better every time I use it. I am getting even more confident with wildlife shots, even with a Canon 2X III extender, in good light. It almost works as well as much shorter lenses for close-up shots - very usable maximum magnification. Downsides are that it's a bit more expensive than the Canon 70-200mm, probably considerably heavier, and I do have some trouble with the optical stabilizer system (but maybe it's the camera). Focus problems as well though it just seems the camera I have it on is to blame (the T1i with its old 9 point autofocus system). If all I needed was the 400mm equivalent range, I would have gotten the new 1.4X extender and I'm sure the image quality would be very good still.

I would avoid the Sigma 120-400mm and probably the 50-500mm as well - I would not be surprised to learn that "budget" options like these are what set you against other options in the first place. But, mark my words, for $500 less than the Canon equivalent the Sigma takes some hard knocks, but at 2X the price of the 100-400 and a bit of loss on the far end the f/2.8 zoom is the best option in the list so far. The only lens which seems able to equal it is the recent 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II but you would need multiple extenders before you can rival what the 120-300mm can do.

I would strongly suggest trying out or renting the lenses you think may be your choice. I don't know how you would go about renting a Sigma 120-300mm.

Photozone.de's tests show the resolution falling off in the corners of a full 35mm frame, and APS-C seems very good on the other hand. Probably the ideal Canon camera for using the 120-300mm is the 7D or perhaps the 60D. With the 120-300mm f/2.8 + EF 2X III combination on the T1i (500D) metering has been inconsistent, autofocus speed and accuracy have been inconsistent (in all but the best light), and even the optical stabilizer doesn't seem to kick in when it's supposed to at times. Without the extender, it performs as it should, and all these points are much improved.

But given that cost - it takes very sharp pictures at a 600mm equivalent setting, enough so that I am willing to put up with the quirks and felling of spinning a roulette wheel when I snap the shutter. I get a good enough number of great photos that I am very happy to have the equivalent of a 600mm f/5.6 IS lens at only $3700 dollars, and it transforms into a zoom lens that is simply not equaled by any other Canon lens by simply taking the extender off.


----------



## UncleFester (Aug 12, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> UncleFester said:
> 
> 
> > "No. It's not a budget issue."
> ...




With a monopod it's surprisingly very portable and sets up really fast.You just flip the locks and the leg slides out and you're up-and-running. Tripod is slower, heavier but balances better on the shoulder.

Heavy.Yes. Comparatively. But probably no worse than a backpack full of lenses,bodies, laptop, leaf blower, and whatever else goes in those things.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 12, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> The new Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6L gets you very close to 400mm natively. Not sure about extender compatibility.



Not compatible with Canon extenders. Compatible with 3rd party extenders, although you'd lose AF on anything but a 1-series body with a 1.4x, and no AF on any Canon body with a 2x.



Edwin Herdman said:


> Both the 70-200 with an extender and the 100-400mm are rather suboptimal choices for this range. Even though the 100-400mm is a "dedicated" zoom, it is beaten by the rather ancient (c. 1998) 400mm f/5.6L for sheer image quality, and the loss of the first-generation IS doesn't seem all that big a problem either.



'Beaten' is relative. Yes, the IQ with the prime is slightly better - but in the era which both lenses are from, that was the norm (actually, it's still the norm, with the exception of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which is a zoom that actually bests primes in the same range, e.g. 200mm f/2.8L II). I do find that the IS makes a difference - I'm not always shooting at the 1/640 s shutter speeds theoretically necessary for handholding at 400mm on APS-C. Another factor is MFD - it's very long on the 400mm prime (over 11 feet), meaning for small, close subjects (e.g. close birds) it's not as effective. The MFD of the 100-400mm is about half that of the 400mm prime. Portability is another factor - the 100-400mm retracted is significantly shorter than the 400mm prime - the former mounted on a 7D will not fit in a toploading bag like the Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW, whereas the latter will (as will the 70-200/2.8, but not with a 2x extender mounted). OTOH, the 400mm prime autofocuses much faster than the 100-400mm zoom, a big point in it's favor.

I agree with the previous comment that in real-world shooting, you're not likely to notice a difference between the 70-200mm II + 2x and the 100-400mm. 

Below is an example with the 70-200 II + 2x II. A rainy day under forest canopy - note the 1/160 s shutter even at ISO 3200 - there's a clear case where IS was needed to get a shot at 400mm on APS-C.




EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 400mm, 1/160 s, f/5.6, ISO 3200


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 13, 2011)

First, thanks for cleaning up after my mistakes...no excuses, I did know about the 400mm's long MFD and the 70-300mmL incompatibility with extenders, at one time, and had forgotten them. Of course, I would expect and hope somebody would remember that a f/5.6 lens is not going to play nicely with teleconverters before they buy it, but the option is still out there and when used within limits it has gotten great reviews.


neuroanatomist said:


> 'Beaten' is relative.


Just to make it obvious where I'm coming from, this is the major review I've based my thinking off. Even at f/11 the 100-400 is still far below what I'd consider to be par.

Of course, close up wildlife actually is much kinder to lens sharpness than many people would expect...and not being able to focus closely is a problem. I have seen perfectly good pictures taken by the 100-400mmL. The 1998 400mm prime sits uncomfortably in the lineup - no aperture advantage, no closer focus distance, no weight advantage, and of course no IS - the first three points conspire strongly to make it a poor choice for wildlife shooting up close, but (in my personal opinion) the 400mm length is not great for much of the distance wildlife shooting (that I do). I can think of many uses for it, but bird or small wildlife photography isn't one of them - though the faster focusing (which I have heard about before) would again put a damper on uses of the 100-400mm.

About my grievance with the 400mm focal length - I usually find it a good length for group portraits - of groundhogs, and other small animals close by! - but not the usual single bird photography often seen. Both these lenses are limited to f/5.6 at the max aperture - for most of us, that means we're done, no more improvement can be had with teleconverters (without sacrificing quality at least). 600mm is a much more useful focal length for me - at all distances, too. The f/2.8 zooms are flexible in this regard, but it's for that reason that I am happy enough to deal with a teleconverter for the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS - a 240-600mm f/5.6 lens is very useful indeed. It's close, though certainly no match or replacement for, the upcoming Canon 200-400mm at the same focal lengths (although no teleconverter switch is needed to move to the 400-600mm-ish range, the f/4 aperture on the coming Canon is nice). I haven't gone and tested minimum focus distance reduction with a 2X teleconverter, but the 120-300mm goes from 1.5m MFD to 2.5m when moving from 120mm to 300mm focal lengths - a bit longer than the 70-200mm but not by far, and I think the focal length will let you feel closer (and enjoy more of the defocus area effect) even from a slightly further (compare 59.1 inches against 47.2 inches) minimum focus distance. The teleconverter won't hurt this specification - so it seems to me proof that, if Canon had its act together, one can have multiple great specifications in the same lens. It is hard to argue against the stable (and actually falling) price of these lenses, though.

But then that takes us back to the issues of flexibility and price - Canon simply ought to update the 100-400mm, no question about it. The 70-200mm's weight doesn't seem too bad, but for my money - when I'm already looking at $2500 for a 70-200mm IS II, and $500 for a teleconverter, another $500 to get an extra 100mm (to 300mm) on the long end, and go from a very so-so 400mm focal length to a much better 600mm focal length seems adequate.

Of course, that doesn't wipe out my personal frustrations with the autofocus, the odd refusal of the optical stabilizer to kick in at the right times (sometimes), while I do get sharp captures down to 1/60 second even at 600mm, and sometimes even lower (I think I've gotten one handheld down to 1/8 of a second, somewhere!), I definitely would say that it hasn't quite earned the bulletproof reputation of the 70-200mm IS II yet. With a better body...if only. One can only hope that Sigma continues to improve that lens line, and that Canon themselves decide to put out a comparable option.

thisYes, the IQ with the prime is slightly better - but in the era which both lenses are from, that was the norm (actually, it's still the norm, with the exception of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which is a zoom that actually bests primes in the same range, e.g. 200mm f/2.8L II).[/quote]
I have to point out a problem with comparing the c. 2008 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II to the c. 1996 200mm f/2.8 USM II design. The MTF charts on Canon's website were a clue to me it's no new lens. (The dated looking product photo is another clue.) The intro of Photozone's article clears up any mystery about introduction dates as well as the difference between the revisions (assuming it is accurate).

For a perhaps better comparison, take the 200mm f/2L IS - despite being larger aperture still, it is nonetheless better corrected than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II zoom. The price points seem irrelevant to me - when Canon releases new designs they are generally the best available for the materials included. The older 200mm f/2.8 design, of course, is the only option available at that price point and that specific form factor - but they could do better today, especially with more advanced materials.

The "zooms today are better than primes" tale I've seen gaining traction especially since the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a myth to me. I think the gap between primes and zooms is much smaller than before, and for functional photography almost nil...but the MTF charts don't lie, either. The maximum modulation transfer of a good recent prime design is far ahead of a good zoom, especially when you get further to the corners, although the critical difference found in many older zooms of wild differences in modulation transfer between meridional and saggital lines is much improved these days. Exotic materials in zooms don't negate the potential of primes to do better with fewer elements, lesser "correction"-induced abnormalities, and to do so at a lower price and often even with fewer exotic materials. And when you get into teleconverters, the near-flawless MTFs of newer primes will really start to prove their worth.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2011)

All great points, Edwin, thanks! The only one I'd like to dispute is on the prime vs. zoom issue. I think price does matter, and the >$5K white primes are in a class by themselves, both in price and optically, rendering comparisons unfair. Instead, I'd propose comparing the 70-200 II to a recent prime affordable by mortals - the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS, same focal length covered, same max aperture. Looking at the MTF data, the zoom is the clear winner. Whether this is a new trend, or the 70-200 II is an outlier, remains to be seen.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 13, 2011)

The point of bringing up the 200mm f/2L is not that it is better simply because it is more expensive and can make use of better exotic materials, but it's better because it's a newer design. The days when rare-earth elements were the only option, and restricted to only certain lenses, are gone. The big whites do use better materials than some of the cheaper lenses - although so does the 70-200mm. The big question is whether they use the exotics in the same proportions, taking into account the geometric progression of element area required to gain one stop. I think that (but have no specific numbers handy to back up any assertion) they do. Comparing one ~2008 lens with another 2008 lens seems fine to me; a lot of that expense goes to correcting the 200mm f/2 and this strikes me (again operating without the influence of empirical information, alas!) as being similar to the situation with superfast 50mm primes - Canon backing away from the f/1 in designing the f/1.2 (which has plenty of problems already). The relevance is that it seems to me there should be more in common between the improvement of even a $5-6K prime lens and a zoom of the same vintage than between a $2500 zoom of new construction and a $780-ish lens from 15 years ago with obviously dated specifications.

There is the old problem with price: It can be made better, but at what cost? $780-ish for a lens of old-fashioned specifications seems like a poor investment to me (in both senses) when there are better options that far outperform it today (and whose price to sale ratios are probably more tightly spaced than they would be 15 years into the item's lifespan), but to paraphrase Bryan from TDP, if all you need is 200mm and f/2.8, and the quality is just acceptable why not go for it? Ultimately, especially for hobbyists, it is about simply being able to take the picture. Personally, I have built in to my general assessment of most lenses the assumption that the newer stuff will be more expensive, which of course is not what many people want to haer. The older lenses are seeing lowered prices due to slight production changes causing "invisible marks" to be slightly cheaper than the earlier lenses - but even if this isn't the case the production should still be cheaper on a fully bugfixed and amortized production line. It's reasonable to expect real price reductions on older lenses but only at the rate of inflation devaluation. I would certainly expect a new 200mm f/2.8 prime wouldn't entirely close the gap with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II in price entirely, but it should be much more expensive simply because it's being made at today's prices. It should also more than close the gap in terms of performance.

But hey, that old 50mm f/1.4 (non-L) is still kickin' pretty good at f/8 (and be there).

Also, I'm sure my yadda yadda about how great the Sigma 120-300 OS might be is starting to get a bit timeworn, so I'll have to try to put up some pictures eventually. I don't know how big the picture you took blows up (from the original file) while keeping acceptable quality, but a lot of stuff I get is right on the edge, even on the camera's 3 inch monitor. But other stuff is great, especially if I can get somewhere near that close in good light. People with better cameras and tripods have certainly excelled my average picture, though I don't know about their keeper rates (especially with the extenders), and when I factor in my often unusual shooting situations it's tough to call the difference. Taking the teleconverter off, I was able to get some pretty good 1/15 second captures today, noticably wider than 400mm framing though, and so less sharp on the subject (but only after increasing magnification to get to a similar subject size on a monitor...like I said, longer focal lengths can help poor lenses; the reverse situation is that being too far away from the subject can make even a good lens look terrible). The overall picture still looks quite nice.

My big takeaway from my long lens experience has been that the physically closer you can get the better, and better framing can turn a pretty so-so lens into a great one. I'm not sure how it would do for print making, even versus that 70-200mm, but Sigma's self-published MTF looks great (better at 300mm than 120mm, strangely).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> The point of bringing up the 200mm f/2L is not that it is better simply because it is more expensive and can make use of better exotic materials, but it's better because it's a newer design.



I do understand that's your point, but by that logic the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS, which is even newer than the 200/2, should be sharper, or at least as sharp. Is it? How about the 300mm f/2.8L IS (MkI)? If age of design is most important, why is a 10-year old design, closer in age to the 135/2 than current lenses, sharper than the new 100L Macro? 

Over time, designs get better. But a design must consider cost of final product, so lenses designed years ago for the high end market could incorporate better features (e.g. more ground/polished elements). Thus, an older but substantially better design (and much more expensive to produce) can best a newer but more economical design.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 13, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I do understand that's your point, but by that logic the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS, which is even newer than the 200/2, should be sharper, or at least as sharp. Is it? How about the 300mm f/2.8L IS (MkI)? If age of design is most important, why is a 10-year old design, closer in age to the 135/2 than current lenses, sharper than the new 100L Macro?


That's getting close to misquoting and missing the point entirely - I did mention new materials being used. I'm only using the 200/2 as a baseline for a newer lens - new telephotos, let alone primes, are not being made with MTF lines dipping down into the 60% range in the center. I would still say that "age" (actually the generation of the design and materials - come on, a one or two year difference is not going to produce new enough technology or materials to overcome optical formula and price differences, to answer your 100mm f/2.8 IS macro vs. 200/2 scenario) is still most important in setting the baseline for what is competitive in terms of IQ - this doesn't mean that cost-cutting or partial updates don't happen. It is best to compare apples to apples, but with the new generation of primes from Canon there is a clear pattern emerging with MTF graphs all starting very near 100% as opposed to older designs. And the 100mm f/2.8 macro is, if only by the MTF graphs, a much sharper lens than the non-IS, non-L version it supplements (not replaces) in the lineup (in truth, for many users it should replace that older lens).

If Canon were to release a replacement for the 200mm f/2.8L II USM, the gains in sharpness might not be as big as a "pull out all the stops" release marked at $5-6K, so market positioning and the compromises made should take some effect. But a $2500 fast telezoom is not so expensive that it uses materials that are going to be off-limits for a prime - I expect that a lot of that price goes to making the whole 70-200mm range usable, and taking away the extra optics used to make that happen should result in a good budget to use materials to make a prime even better.

The real story behind all this is that Canon, and all other companies in the sector for that matter, do not simply release newer lenses because they can; they prioritize. Letting a 15-year old design stand on the market only illustrates the potential for absurd-seeming situations but in truth most people are going after the 70-200mm f/2.8, even though it is substantially heavier and more attention-grabbing than the black telephoto. But it doesn't reflect what is possible with current technology at all.

Incidentally, the worst lens I own is an old Makinon 200mm f/3.3 which only focuses as close as 10 feet! It's roughly late 70s-early 80s (I'd guess) and very hard to focus even in live view - color fringing appears on the edges of subjects depending on whether they are behind or in front of the plane of focus. Makinon was never close to Canon, but to think - 15 years later would see the 200mm f/2.8 USM.


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 13, 2011)

I apologize for the cynicism, but this thread has declined into hair-splitting at its finest.

100-400mm vs. 70-200 II + 2.0x III are just about equal (and I don't think there are huge IQ problems with either)

You really want quality better than that? The 300 f2.8 and 400mm f2.8 are available (along with the 1.4x III and 2.0x III TC if you need extra reach).

That's the answer to the question. If you want better quality, pay more and sacrifice the flexibility of a zoom. Stop with the pedantic arguing. /rant


----------



## 1982chris911 (Aug 13, 2011)

Some picture taken with the combination: 
Taken at 400mm with 70-200mm IS2 TC x2 III



European Red Kite von 1982Chris911 (Thank you 100.000 Times) auf Flickr


At 292mm



Owl on Pole  von 1982Chris911 (Thank you 100.000 Times) auf Flickr


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 13, 2011)

KyleSTL said:


> If you want better quality, pay more and sacrifice the flexibility of a zoom. Stop with the pedantic arguing. /rant


Actually, it wasn't hair-splitting so much as completely off-topic by this point  It's a free country, though, and you don't need to tell other people what to do. Other than that, yes, I agree that paying more is a sure way to get better quality, but there are options less expensive than going to the EF 300mm or some other prime plus a teleconverter. It seems absurd to limit ourselves to either a $1500 lens or a $2900 lens combination ($2600-ish if you go with an older Mark II teleconverter) and then ignore the other very good options in this range before making the jump to $4000+ options.


1982chris911 said:


> Some picture taken with the combination:
> Taken at 400mm with 70-200mm IS2 TC x2 III


Nice photos. I'll have to see how close I come to meeting those...although the comparison won't be exact due to the differences in lenses. (Also, while there are bald eagles very close to my location, they are behind some wire fence and that makes it hard to expose correctly - they also are farther than I can approach.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2011)

KyleSTL said:


> If you want better quality, pay more and sacrifice the flexibility of a zoom. Stop with the pedantic arguing. /rant


While I agree that we went a bit OT, it seems you missed the point in any case - the 70-200 II is a zoom with IQ that surpasses 4 L-series primes in it's range (85/1.2, 100/2.8, 135/2, and 200/2.8 ). But enough. 

I agree that the IQ differences between the 100-400mm and the 70-200 II + 2x are minor and likely irrelevant for real world use. But IQ isn't the whole story. The 70-200 II has terrific AF, but many people don't know that in addition to reducing max aperture by 1 or 2 stops, a TC also results in slower AF (programmed into the firmware) - 25% slower with a 1.4x and 50% slower with a 2x, and I can certainly notice the latter. 

The bottom line is that TCs are best reserved for occasional use, and if you need a particular focal length, you're best served getting a lens that achieves that focal length natively.


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 14, 2011)

Ok, now we're talking about the real difference is the lenses (not that I own either, but I'm a serial researcher in all things tech). AF (speed and accuracy) and IS are definite ways of separating these two seemingly equal combinations of lenses. I'm sorry I came across as bossy, but I think having a discussion of the differences in the lens performance (outside of IQ) is more reasonable than trying to find the 'sharper' of the two. Just trying to get the conversation back on topic. I think the 'feel' and 'intangibles' of the two options are likely to be the deciding factors, and probably renting is the best way to go to see which choice is better for you (or if either is able to suit your needs at all).


----------



## hambergler (Aug 14, 2011)

wait for 200-400 F/4 L with built in 1.4x TC an option?


----------



## sparda79 (Aug 14, 2011)

Here a shot from this morning. 7D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II + 2x III
400mm, 1/400, ISO400, f/8, cropped & post-processed


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2011)

KyleSTL said:


> Ok, now we're talking about the real difference is the lenses (not that I own either, but I'm a serial researcher in all things tech). AF (speed and accuracy) and IS are definite ways of separating these two seemingly equal combinations of lenses.



Another practical difference (think I already mentioned this) is that the 70-200 II + TC is weather-sealed (when used with a 7D), whereas the 100-400mm lacks the mount gasket (although the switches and extending zoom/focus ring are sealed).


----------



## lol (Aug 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Another practical difference (think I already mentioned this) is that the 70-200 II + TC is weather-sealed (when used with a 7D), whereas the 100-400mm lacks the mount gasket (although the switches and extending zoom/focus ring are sealed).


Just to chip in there, regardless of what sealing the 100-400L has, I'd consider it unsealed as far as wet weather usage is concerned. On more than one occasion using it unprotected in persisting moderate-heavy rain, I've had water ingress probably via the pump-zoom action which re-dispersed as condensation on the elements. My fix for that was getting the 70-300L in addition and in heavy rain testing so far that has held out. I considered going the 70-200II route too, but that just seemed unnecessarily expensive for a shorter zoom range where I have no need for possible faster apertures.


----------

