# Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L ?



## Marsu42 (Feb 12, 2012)

I am going to spend money I don't really have on a tele lens later this year for my crop body, so I really want to get the right one. If anyone has experience with these lenses, please give me some advice... here are my thoughts:

* 70-300L: fine but heavy lens, but is overpriced compared to the non-L version. Problem is it doesn't take a tele converter (thanks, canon marketing!) - but on the other hand, f/5.6+extender light capability would be too low anyway.

* 70-200/4L+2x: great and not too heavy lens, but using an extender doesn't make sense: In my experience, shooting moving objects at 300mm+ requires a large aperture at least of f/4 (next to a good servo af that is, unlike my 60d).

* 70-200/2.8L+2x: this is the combination I'd get at the moment - very short min. focus distance, great iq, still ok light capability w/ extender.

* the new 100-400/4-5.6L: I really don't know what to make of this: if the price prediction is right (which I doubt knowing canon rumors ) it is more expensive than the 70-200/2.8+2x combination, covers about the same focal distances and has worse light capability - why would anybody want to buy that? As I wrote above, extending a 5.6 lens doesn't make much sense to me...


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 12, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> * the new 100-400/4-5.6L: I really don't know what to make of this: if the price prediction is right (which I doubt knowing canon rumors ) it is more expensive than the 70-200/2.8+2x combination, covers about the same focal distances and has worse light capability - why would anybody want to buy that? As I wrote above, extending a 5.6 lens doesn't make much sense to me...


I wouldn't put the new 100-400mm lens on your list. It is not a confirmed rumor and there is no telling when it will hit the market. We've heard about the 200-400 lens since at least 2008 and were even told by Canon over a year ago that it would be released sometime in 2011. The 600/f4 was first listed as for sale on the B&H site June 17, 2011, but it's still not available.

A rumor and $1.50 will get you bus fare.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 12, 2012)

Standard Reply: It depends on what you want to shoot.

My opinion: 70-200mm is great for weddings and events, where you are shooting people and light is less than ideal. I think it's too short for most wildlife and many sports. (Depends on how close you can get to the action).

70-300mm is a good all-around telephoto range. That's one reason why there are so many versions of this lens available from so many different manufacturers. I think almost everyone can benefit from having this range in their camera bag. The tough decision is deciding what specific one to buy. 

100-400mm is great for wildlife and birding, but it is a substantial lens. (although it is actually a few ounces lighter than the 70-200 f2.8 ). Probably not the best choice for a first telephoto, but a great choice if you really are into bird and wildlife photography.

I'm not a fan of tele-extenders. I think they are inconvenient and there is some loss of quality. But that's my personal bias.

There is no perfect choice, which is why there are so many options. Decide what your interests are and buy accordingly. But, before buying anything, check out "Roger's Take" on these and other lenses at Lensrentals.com. Each lens description is a mini-review from a practical perspective and gives you the benefit of his years of hands-on experience with hundred of lenses. You may find, after reading his comments and doing some research, that none of your original choices are what you really need, and a less expensive alternative might suit you better for the time being.


----------



## Tijn (Feb 12, 2012)

70-200 f/4 x2 doesn't work because it won't AF (f/4 -> f/5.6 -> f/8). EOS bodies don't focus at f/8 apertures, except for some high end models (1D X?).

70-200 f/2.8 IS II is crazy sharp and can take a teleconverter. Not sure I'd go 2x though, but 1.4x would be a very decent addition to the usefulness of this lens (making it a respectable 98-280mm f/4).

The 70-300L is not overpriced compared to the non-L. It's _very very sharp_, it's very well built, weathersealed, has better IS, ring USM AF with full time manual focus (vs micro USM on the non-L)... It may look overpriced, but it's an L lens well worth its "L" predicate.

Granted, it won't take a teleconverter, but it does do 300mm - which is great for a very large variety of purposes. It is also a very recent, "up to date" lens by the way. Getting this lens won't be a bad choice for your first 'decent' zoom. It does a great range and it does it amazingly well.

For a faster lens (both aperture wise and autofocus wise) with optimal sharpness but a bit less range (and a much larger budget) the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II may be the best choice, though it has less tele range. It'll be better for stuff like portraits and low-light situations because of the f/2.8, but is a bit limited in range to be a perfect all-rounder telezoom.

My vote goes for 70-300L as a "general very very very decent first telezoom". It's a great allrounder worth its price. Unless your main interest is portraits and low light, but in that case you should have said so.


----------



## lol (Feb 12, 2012)

70-300L isn't heavy. Well, it's all relative, but compared to a 70-200/2.8 it's the light option. Even if you were able to put a Canon 1.4x on it, you wont have AF.

70-200/4L+2x - you wont have AF. You can cheap out and use it with 1.4x only to get up to 280mm f/4.

70-200/2.8L+2x - assuming you mean the IS II version, should be ok with the 2x on it, but it's going to be f/5.6 from 280-400mm. So if you stick around the long end a lot, it's worse than a current 100-400L.

Basically if you need a long zoom range at once, and will be spending a lot of time towards the long end, look at the 70-300L and current 100-400L. If you need the aperture at shorter lengths (<200) with only occasional longer focal length needs, look at the 70-200s.

I have and like the 70-300L and 100-400L for different reasons, but both are easily usable as long as you're not high ISO phobic. Since I do lean towards the long end while still requiring zoom, the 70-200 lenses don't make as much sense to me and the lack of depth of field isn't a plus for me.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 12, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I'm not a fan of tele-extenders. I think they are inconvenient and there is some loss of quality. But that's my personal bias.



Thank you very much so far, guys...

* you're correct, I should have written what I want to shoot: I want to get pictures of wildlife (birds, butterfiles) and plants in addition to the shorter focal range of my non-is 100 macro. If I was into portraits I'd get a fixed prime instead.

* converters: so far, I've only read excellent reviews about the Canon 1.4x/2x mkiii - they sacrifice some af speed, but iq is said to be excellent. Am I missing something here?

* 70-300 focal range: I have a broken, crappy 100-300 from the analog days lying around and have to say the increase in range from 200 to 300 doesn't really make that much of a difference. That's why I was thinking of getting the 70-200/2.8 + 2x converter and the title of the tread is "70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L"

* 70-300 aperture: I know from my old lens that [email protected] is not much if the subjects is not static, and of course IS does not help here. A sharp shot [email protected] or of course f2.8 imho is better than a blurry or very high iso shot @300. Furthermore, I find it really annoying to have a variable aperture on a lens, you always have to fumble around in av mode when zooming in and out.

* 70-300 brand: I prefer Canon because of the execellent potential re-sale value. However, you wrote that are other good 70-300 offerings around - feel free to direct me to a comparison


----------



## justsomedude (Feb 12, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I am going to spend money I don't really have on a tele lens later this year for my crop body, so I really want to get the right one. If anyone has experience with these lenses, please give me some advice... here are my thoughts:



What do you shoot the most? And, how do you plan on implementing a tele-zoom into your workflow? 

Intended usage is critical when selecting a lens/focal-length.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 12, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> What do you shoot the most? And, how do you plan on implementing a tele-zoom into your workflow?



In addition to the things I've already written above (parallel to your post):

* my workflow is being outdoors and shooting very close-up objects (butterflies), often with a tripod (bugs) with my non-is macro. I need a stablized keep-on lens for "everything else, mostly further away", i.e. birds and plants. For the wide angle rest, I'm going to buy a 11-16 if I am sure that I'll stay with aps-c.


----------



## Tijn (Feb 13, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> * you're correct, I should have written what I want to shoot: I want to get pictures of wildlife (birds, butterfiles) and plants in addition to the shorter focal range of my non-is 100 macro. If I was into portraits I'd get a fixed prime instead.


For birds, one generally wants a focal length of more than 200. 300 would seem to me to be a 'minimum'. Also, birds generally aren't low-light situations, so f/5.6 at that range would seem to me not to pose any problems. Av also sticks to the largest aperture if you want it to. It'll auto stick from 4 to 5.6 and back to 4 again when zooming back out, without needing manual adjustments.



> * converters: so far, I've only read excellent reviews about the Canon 1.4x/2x mkiii - they sacrifice some af speed, but iq is said to be excellent. Am I missing something here?


A converter projects the image on a smaller area. For each "step", you lose one stop of light. With a 1.4x teleconverter, you gain a bit of focal length, but the lens only lets in half as much light. Effectively, the maximum aperture is reduced. So a 70-200 f/2.8 will become a 98-280 f/4. With a 2x teleconverter, you lose 2 stops of light (which is 4x less light), so a 70-200 f/2.8 would become a 140-400 f/5.6.
A teleconverter blows up lens deficiencies. If you have a really great lens, this will be marginal. But more noticable with a 2x converter than with a 1.4x converter, because they're blown up more.

As mentioned, Canon bodies (except perhaps 1D X and some old bodies) doesn't autofocus with lenses of aperture f/8 or greater. So a 70-200 f/4 lens with a 2x teleconverter which ends up as a 140-400 f/8 lens, will not autofocus. Unless you put tape on a connector in the lens forcing the body to autofocus, which it will then try to do, but very poorly.

I wouldn't recommend more than a 1.4x teleconverter, and only on really good lenses. Except perhaps 2x on a good 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Getting an L lens with the required focal lengths natively usually produces better results than with teleconverters.



> * 70-300 focal range: I have a broken, crappy 100-300 from the analog days lying around and have to say the increase in range from 200 to 300 doesn't really make that much of a difference. That's why I was thinking of getting the 70-200/2.8 + 2x converter and the title of the tread is "70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L"


There are three 70-200 f/2.8's. The non-IS version, the IS I and the IS II. Of these 3, the last one is twice as expensive as the first, and it's the only one that's incredibly sharp wide open. You will not want to blow up the not-quite-sharpness of the first two versions of that lens with a teleconverter. Only the last one is so sharp that it'd probably still produce great results at 2x.

If you have the budget, you'll like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II a lot. I would, if I had the budget. Even though it's heavy


----------



## Aaron78 (Feb 13, 2012)

I own a 7D and a 70-200 2.8L IS II and both the 1.4 and 2x mk.III extenders, and i will tell you in a heartbeat to go with my lens and an extender. However, i will recommend you go with the 1.4 rather than the 2. Keep in mind that your cropped body turns this lens into a 113-323mm 2.8 without an extender, so you'll be around a 158-452mm f/4 with the 1.4 extender on and still produce sharp pictures. I have only had the 2x extender for a week and only used it on one outing, so i can't recommend it. I will say though, that inital photos don't seem to be sharp at all. Actually, i hope this might grab the attention of someone with the mk.II 70-200 and mk.III 2x extender to respond here, as i am interested to see if others say their images are sharp or fuzzy looking with that setup. In short, go with the 70-200 2.8 is II and the 1.4x III and you will be very happy.


----------



## Aaron78 (Feb 13, 2012)

The 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM II can be had for $2,174.00 right now from several credible online retailers if you can swing it, that's a heck of a good price.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 13, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I am going to spend money I don't really have on a tele lens later this year for my crop body, so I really want to get the right one. If anyone has experience with these lenses, please give me some advice... here are my thoughts:
> 
> * 70-300L: fine but heavy lens, but is overpriced compared to the non-L version. Problem is it doesn't take a tele converter (thanks, canon marketing!) - but on the other hand, f/5.6+extender light capability would be too low anyway.
> 
> ...



That is the first timeI have heard of the 70-300L being refered to as heavy!

- about the same weight as the 70-200+1.4 and considerably lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8

- the 100-400 is verging on heavy, considerably more than the other 2 options

The AF on the 70-300 is very fast and ideal for BIF if the light is reasonable - here is an example of the bird close up flying straight at me, possibly the hardest for the camera.


----------



## mapboys (Feb 13, 2012)

I've been down this road and currently own both lenses in question. The answer I have for this issue is a 300mm f2.8 prime. Its a great lens and if you shoot consistently on the long end of either of these lenses the 300 with a 1.4x is a great combination. You still have autofocus and if 300 is too long, back up a few feet. My 100-400 is about to hit ebay and I never plan to put the 2X on the 70-200 again.

Bob Hulse


----------



## vlim (Feb 13, 2012)

> I am going to spend money I don't really have on a tele lens later this year for my crop body, so I really want to get the right one. If anyone has experience with these lenses, please give me some advice... here are my thoughts:
> 
> * 70-300L: fine but heavy lens, but is overpriced compared to the non-L version. Problem is it doesn't take a tele converter (thanks, canon marketing!) - but on the other hand, f/5.6+extender light capability would be too low anyway.
> 
> ...



And don't forget the SIGMA 120-300mm F2,8 APO EX DG OS HSM, this is a very very good lens !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I am going to spend money I don't really have...


How much of a budget _don't_ you really have? While the suggestion of a 300/2.8L IS is wonderful, I'm going to assume that spending several thousand dollars is not an option...

Short version: I'd recommend the 100-400mm - the current one. IQ is slightly better than the 70-200 II + 2x, the usability is much better, and it's much kinder on the wallet.

Long version:

I personally own both the 100-400mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, plus the 1.4x and 2x II extenders, and both FF and APS-C bodies - so, I'm speaking from personal experience here.

Looking at your other suggestions

 new 100-400/4-5.6L - lenses that are rumors don't take good pictures. As pointed out above, Canon's recent track record for delivering even products that have been announced is pretty poor lately. Sure, if it's available when you're ready to buy, and you can afford it (the $3K price estimate seems quite likely to me), get it.
70-300L - a very good lens, and *if you don't need 400mm, it's the best choice*. But, in my experience, for shooting birds/wildlife, you often do need the reach of 400mm on APS-C, and you may end up cropping even more.
70-200/4L+2x - a non-starter. You'd be at f/8, meaning no AF unless you also buy a 1-series body - except the 1D X - to mount it on.
70-200/2.8L+2x - this one is worthy of more discussion, and it seems you think so, too, based on your post title



Marsu42 said:


> converters: so far, I've only read excellent reviews about the Canon 1.4x/2x mkiii - they sacrifice some af speed, but iq is said to be excellent. Am I missing something here?


The extenders are really designed for use with supertele primes (300/2.8 and up, excluding the 300/4 and 400/5.6), which take much less of an IQ hit than any zoom or the cheaper primes like the 300/4). Canon knows this - it's why they designed the new 200-400mm with an integral extender, one that could be optimized for that zoom lens, even though there is already an excellent 1.4x III. IMO, an extender should be thought of as an occasional-use item. In practice, mounting the extender is a pain (unless you happen to have three hands), especially in the field and if you're in a hurry. I don't think it's wise to buy a lens and plan to use it mostly with an extender. Rather, get the native focal length you need, and use the extender as a supplement once in a while, for specific reasons.

In this specific case, the first question is, which 70-200/2.8 do you have in mind - there are three of them. You mention that image stabilization is important, so that rules out the 70-200/2.8 non-IS. I would not use a 2x extender on the 70-200/2.8 IS MkI, it takes a big IQ hit - here's a comparison. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II does take extenders reasonably well - here's a comparison of bare MkII lens vs. lens+2xIII. Still, considering just IQ, the 100-400mm at 400mm is still better than the 70-200 II + 2xIII (comparison).

In practice, the IQ difference between the 100-400mm and the 70-200 II + 2x is probably not going to be too noticeable (or not at all) in real-world shooting. But also, as you mention, using an extender slows down AF - in fact, with the 2x extender there's a *50% reduction* in AF speed. That means the 100-400mm will focus faster than the 70-200 II + 2xIII (it's noticable in real-world use, but it's not _too_ bad). Finally, there's cost - the 100-400mm is over $1000 less than the 70-200 II + 2xIII. 

You mention the variable aperture as a problem, but in Av mode it really isn't. It can be annoying if you shoot full manual, yes...but depending on your body, Auto ISO may compensate (on the 7D, M mode supports Auto ISO, which would compensate for the variable aperture as you zoom).

You mention using the lens for close-ups, and in that situation, the 70-200 II + 2x has an advantage - the bare lenses have about the same maximum magnification (~0.2x), but if you add the 2x extender to the 70-200 II, you double the magnification without changing the MFD, meaning you can achieve 0.4x with the combo. However, keep in mind that applies at the MFD, which is 4 feet for the 70-200 II and 6 feet for the 100-400mm. So, unless you can get pretty close to your subjects, the extra magnification won't necessarily be double.

So...comparing the current 100-400mm to the 70-200 II + 2x, which is better? Well, the 100-400mm has slightly better IQ at 400mm, slightly faster AF, and is substantially cheaper. The trade off is the 100-400mm is an older design (not sure why that matters), has a lower maximum magnification, and is not weather sealed (which really only matters if your crop body is the 7D).

The other problem with the 70-200 + 2x is usability. In one sense, it's more versatile - you have a fast 70-200mm, and a slow 280-400mm, all in one lens. But you don't have both at once, so, it's often an either-or situation anyway. 

Personally, if I know I'm going out to shoot birds/wildlife, I grab the 7D and 100-400mm, almost every time. The only exception to that is when I'm going out in the rain - in that case, I'll take the 7D and 70-200 II + 2x for the weather sealing. Honestly, I found the 70-200mm focal length to be a bit awkward on APS-C - too long for indoor use, too short when I needed real reach (since I have the 100-400 for that). OTOH, on FF the 70-200mm is an amazingly versatile lens, great indoors and out - so, if I'm going on an outing and taking the 70-200mm for that, I'll often throw in the 2x extender, just in case.

So, the bottom line is that for birds/wildlife/etc., I think the 100-400mm offers the best compromises between IQ, ease of use, and cost. I don't think there's a better option under $3000 if you need 400mm and want IS.

I'll end with a bunch of examples, since I think it's helpful to back up words with images. You can click through for a larger image, and View All Sizes in the upper right can get you a 1600 pixel version so you can get a better idea of the IQ.

First, 70-200 II + 1.4x, on a drizzly afternoon:




EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 1.4x II Extender @ 280mm, 1/2000 s, f/6.3, ISO 3200

Next, 70-200 II + 2x, again on a misty day:




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

Now, a few with the 100-400mm:




EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 125




EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 200




EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 160




EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/1600 s, f/6.3, ISO 1600

Finally, since you mention shooting insects/plants, too, here are a couple of other subjects with the 100-400mm:




EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 100




EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 100


----------



## Dianoda (Feb 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> In practice, the IQ difference between the 100-400mm and the 70-200 II + 2x is probably not going to be too noticeable (or not at all) in real-world shooting. But also, as you mention, using an extender slows down AF - in fact, with the 2x extender there's a *50% reduction* in AF speed. That means the 100-400mm will focus faster than the 70-200 II + 2xIII (it's noticable in real-world use, but it's not _too_ bad). Finally, there's cost - the 100-400mm is over $1000 less than the 70-200 II + 2xIII.



Minor nitpick: I'm pretty sure the reduction in AF speed compared to a bare lens is 50% for the 1.4x TC and 75% for the 2x TC.

Yep, found the reference - Here's a quote from the EF 1.4x III review @ thedigitalpicture.com (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx):
_According to Chuck Westfall (Canon USA): "As with previous EF Extenders, usage of Series III EF Extenders lowers AF drive speed to improve AF performance. When Extender EF 1.4X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 50%. When Extender EF 2X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 75%. This may seem like a drawback, but in reality subject tracking performance remains quite high when Series III Extenders are used with IS II lenses. This is due to improvements in AF precision made possible by the new microcomputer in the extenders."_

And further in the review:
_Note that "AF precision remains the same as the Series II Extenders when the Series III Extenders are used with earlier extender-compatible EF lenses." [Canon]_

Just to clarify, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II does not benefit from the AF precision improvements of the new III series TC's (Chuck's IS II reference is specific to the new super-tele primes); I believe development of the 70-200 was too far ahead of the new super-teles/TC's to take advantage of the improvements.

In my personal experience, the difference in AF speed between the bare 70-200 IS II and the lens plus 1.4x III is noticeable, but the AF speed of bare lens is so incredibly fast that, in practice, even a 50% reduction to AF speed is rarely an issue (assuming I'm not limited by available light).


----------



## PixelReaper (Feb 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to spend money I don't really have...
> ...



+1!!!!

Thanks neuro!! You are the best. Your images are a big help for me. I have been struggling to decide between the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 70-300 L. I do mostly portrait and family shots in outdoor/indoors and low light. I use a 5dII so I too think the 70-200 is very versatile for this body with the large aperature and still fairly wide on the FF. I will also plan to use the 2x III TC for the more limited times I shoot wildlife. Based on the images you posted it appears this combo can still capture plenty of detail. I figure this way, I get the best tele zoom while still having the flexibility to get the reach. 

Does this strategy make sense to everyone?

I would love any other examples of photos with the 70-200 2.8 IS II + 2x TC

Thanks


----------



## tt (Feb 13, 2012)

Is the 50% reduction on a camera by camera basis? 
Eg the 1DX might focus 50% slower with an extender on, but still have comparitively quick AF to a lower model without an extender on?


----------



## Dianoda (Feb 13, 2012)

tt said:


> Is the 50% reduction on a camera by camera basis?
> Eg the 1DX might focus 50% slower with an extender on, but still have comparitively quick AF to a lower model without an extender on?



The AF speed reduction is based on the len's native auto-focus speed. The camera body will make a difference in ultimate AF performance, but the AF speed reduction due to telecovertor use is independent of camera body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2012)

Dianoda said:


> Minor nitpick: I'm pretty sure the reduction in AF speed compared to a bare lens is 50% for the 1.4x TC and 75% for the 2x TC.



Thanks for the correction - worse than I remembered. But, as you say, in practice the AF on the 70-200 II is very fast, so even slowed by 75% it's still decent - certainly fine for static subjects, although I'm not sure how it would do with birds in flight, for example.



PixelReaper said:


> I have been struggling to decide between the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 70-300 L. I do mostly portrait and family shots in outdoor/indoors and low light. I use a 5dII so I too think the 70-200 is very versatile for this body with the large aperature and still fairly wide on the FF. I will also plan to use the 2x III TC for the more limited times I shoot wildlife. Based on the images you posted it appears this combo can still capture plenty of detail. I figure this way, I get the best tele zoom while still having the flexibility to get the reach.
> 
> Does this strategy make sense to everyone?



Makes sense to me, and for portraits, I'd definitely pick the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II over the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. 

Good example of the use case you describe was an outing to the zoo with my kids, where I took the 5DII and 70-200 II, along with the 2x II. The latter came in handy for shots of the animals, and even f/5.6 (on FF) is sufficient to blur out the fences reasonably well:




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 260mm, 1/250 s, f/5.6, ISO 400


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 13, 2012)

vlim said:


> And don't forget the SIGMA 120-300mm F2,8 APO EX DG OS HSM, this is a very very good lens !



... I'd usually stick to Canon because of the re-sale value and the (Canon-made) incompatibilities of 3rd-party lenses with upcoming bodies. Did you compare this Sigma lens to the Canons? I just did a search on this lens and found it is not recommended for use with an extender because of iq ... in this case I can get the Canon 70-300 as well and save $$$. The main reason I was thinking about the Canon 70-200/2.8 was the iq that is not that bad using an extender - otherwise I am not sure how often 2.8 is really necessary except for weddings etc.



briansquibb said:


> That is the first timeI have heard of the 70-300L being refered to as heavy!



... well, it is in comparison with the 70-200/4 and my 100macro - I can hold my 60D + the latter in one hand and the remote flash in the other.



neuroanatomist said:


> Good example of the use case you describe was an outing to the zoo with my kids



... um, to be honest this bird shot from the zoo seems less-than-stellar to me when looking at the highest resolution on flickr - If I shoot something like this with my 100macro I'd scrap it. Could be because of the jpeg compression on flickr (I've got no experience with it)?



neuroanatomist said:


> How much of a budget _don't_ you really have?



Money-wise, a 70-200/2.8LIS2+extender would be the absolute sound barrier for me, I am currently your average crawl-through-the-woods fun shooter. And you are correct about the lack of flexibility because changing the extender outdoors isn't very practical. In combination with the rediculous weight, the arguably "ok" iq (judging from your very helpful sample shots) and the price I'll scrap this option and go either for the 70-300 or 100-400 which are half of the price of the 2.8 combination. If I ever turn wedding photographer I can still sell these for a good price.

Btw: Thanks for your great comments on these lenses, that was certainly conclusive! I hope other people find this thread because my problem should be quite common.

One question about the current 100-400: I saw a guy with this lens standing next to me today and remembered that people were complaining about the bad usability of the pull-push-design. Since you really seem to be using these lenses: What's your opinion on that?


----------



## Halfrack (Feb 13, 2012)

I've got the 100-400 and the 70-200 2.8L - love them both for different reasons. Both will do what you're looking for.

Consider the 300F4L IS in this mix, you'll not have the zoom, but for wildlife it may be your best - especially when you toss on the 1.4x and also the body 1.6x factors.

Since it's money you may not have, pick up a 200/2.8 and both the 1.4x and 2x adapters, it'll cost you about the same as most of these lenses you're taking about, and you can step into it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Good example of the use case you describe was an outing to the zoo with my kids
> ...



I think what you're seeing is a DoF issue - the tip of the beak is outside of the DoF, so it looks blurry. Also, even though the fence is blurred out, it's there - shooting through it costs some sharpness. Finally, :-[ the focus was probably a little off (back focus) - that outing was literally the day after I got the 2x extender, and I hadn't yet done an AF microadjustment on the combination.



Marsu42 said:


> One question about the current 100-400: I saw a guy with this lens standing next to me today and remembered that people were complaining about the bad usability of the pull-push-design. Since you really seem to be using these lenses: What's your opinion on that?



I really like it. The only 'problem' is if you know you want to set the lens to a specific focal length, e.g. 250mm, it's harder to dial that in than with a rotating zoom ring - but that's pretty uncommon, I would think. The push-pull design's advantage is that you can change framing _very_ quickly, and without having to reposition your hand to support the weight of the lens from the bottom.


----------



## Cyclops (Feb 13, 2012)

I own a 70-200L f2.8 II, and this weekend I rented the 70-300L. I was very impressed with image quality, so light weight I could use this as my everyday lens. 

5DII w/ 70-300L - examples


----------



## Michael_pfh (Feb 13, 2012)

Go for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the extenders! It's a great lens that takes both extenders well, particulalry the 1.4x does not impact the IQ much. 2.0x works ok with it. I only got the Mk2 version of the extenders, Mk3 is supposed to be better but the price tag is significantly higher.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 13, 2012)

Cyclops said:


> I own a 70-200L f2.8 II, and this weekend I rented the 70-300L. I was very impressed with image quality, so light weight I could use this as my everyday lens.



... well, images at this resolution could be shot with my mobile phone :-> ... but the bokeh looks nice even at 4-5.6 which is very important to me.



neuroanatomist said:


> Finally, :-[ the focus was probably a little off (back focus) - that outing was literally the day after I got the 2x extender, and I hadn't yet done an AF microadjustment on the combination.



Indeed, the backfocus would explain it. And, speaking of which: my "slimmed down by Canon marketing" 60D doesn't feature such elaborate things as af adjustment - it doesn't matter on my 100macro because w/ 2.8 the iq is bad anyway and the dof is so paper-thin I almost never use it.

But it seems, other lenses that are actually shot at the widest aperture (not to speak with an extender) do require it ... which makes me lean towards the 70-300 or 100-400, because a new body is really not included in my budget.


----------



## PixelReaper (Feb 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> PixelReaper said:
> 
> 
> > I have been struggling to decide between the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 70-300 L. I do mostly portrait and family shots in outdoor/indoors and low light. I use a 5dII so I too think the 70-200 is very versatile for this body with the large aperature and still fairly wide on the FF. I will also plan to use the 2x III TC for the more limited times I shoot wildlife. Based on the images you posted it appears this combo can still capture plenty of detail. I figure this way, I get the best tele zoom while still having the flexibility to get the reach.
> ...



Thanks for your response Neuro. The color looks great on that last bird shot. As much as I like the form factor on the 70-300L, being able to take off the Extender on the 70-200 IS II and having a f/2.8 that is super sharp wide open means the lens has much more flexibility. In many ways acts as 2 lenses in one, given the IQ with the extender is still rather acceptable, which justifies the combined extra $1k you spend.

One side note to anyone considering the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II's weight (a topic that comes up on this and other forums almost daily!!). 

When I first borrowed this lens from a friend, I ruled it out right away due to the weight, which after carrying it in hand for 30 minutes, I considered to be oppressive.

However!! The second time I borrowed it, I had purchased a Custom SLR Strap, a sling style strap with the glide feature(similar to the BlackRapid) and I was able to easily carry the lens with my gripped 5D Mark II for four hours with absolutely no fatigue. Plus you can easily move it behind your back and have your hands free for other things, in my case, namely my kid!

Long story short - plan on buying a sling style strap with the glide feature aka BlackRapid or Custom SLR strap(which I highly recomend). The weight issue quickly becomes a non issue, and you are left with one of the sharpest, most versatile lens out there (next to my 35 1.4L that is!!   )


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 13, 2012)

You know, I own too many lenses. Thought about buying the 70-300L because of the IQ/focal length. I already own the 70-200/2.8. Maybe I should just get a 1.4x. Any thoughts on IQ comparisons? Focus speed?


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dianoda said:
> 
> 
> > Minor nitpick: I'm pretty sure the reduction in AF speed compared to a bare lens is 50% for the 1.4x TC and 75% for the 2x TC.
> ...



Thx for both of your postings containing a wealth of info on this topic. Very helpful and very much appreciated.

I own the the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II L and the 1.4x Tele-extender Rev III. Having had the prior 1.4x Tele-extender Rev 2, the IQ and sharpness of this new rev combination of lens and tele-extender is noticeable. IQ is more than acceptable, as are the reductions in AF speed, AF speed has not been an issue in work such as professional cycling or equestrian jumping.

I've been debating combinations of additional lenses to my bag with the 1.4x Rev III as opposed to adding the 2x Rev III to get longer effective focal lengths with the lenses I have. Having both a 5Dmk2 and a 7D, with the intention of getting a 1Dx and selling my 5Dmk2 later this year, I am factoring in more sports work at FF than I do today which is tilted towards the 7D for it's AF and frame rate.

For example, one option I considered is the 300mm f/4 IS L with the 1.4x extender Rev III to reach 420mm f/5.6, or go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II with the 2x rev III extender, reaching 400mm f/5.6. Option #1 is about $1500, option #2 is about $500 since I own the 70-200mm already. This is where I look to balance flexibility vs. costs vs. performance.

Having the flexibility of the zoom is a plus, as is the cost being 2/3 less money by adding the 2x extender. On the other hand, my guess is the IQ will be better on the 300mm f/4 plus the 1.4x extender (which I have already). I'm leaning towards to 2x Rev III due to my experience with the 1.4x Rev III IQ, the reduced cost, and the flexibility of the zoom.

Like others, I wish someone that has the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 2x rev III extender would chime in.....maybe I'll take one for the team and be that person instead. ;D

If I do, I'll have to devise a set of tests to do a proper comparison, with input from folks here....BUT NOT YET!!! I have to examine budget first as I just added the Elinchrom 74" Octabank to my weapons. 

I'll post a new thread if I order the 2x to garner input for a test setup and a location where all can get the RAWs for evaluation.

-Bob


----------



## PixelReaper (Feb 13, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> You know, I own too many lenses. Thought about buying the 70-300L because of the IQ/focal length. I already own the 70-200/2.8. Maybe I should just get a 1.4x. Any thoughts on IQ comparisons? Focus speed?



According to the review and the ISO charts on TDP, the 1.4III see very limited IQ loss when mated with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs. the 70-300L

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 13, 2012)

Interestingly enough, I found this comparison:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=111&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

That compares the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II plus the 2x Rev III extender with the 300mm f/4 IS L plus the 1.4x Rev II extender. Note that is the rev 2 1.4x not the rev 3 1.4x mounted with the 300mm. The IQ looks good in the center on the 70-200 combo, but does become soft in the corners. 

There's no question based on the images that the 300mm plus the older 1.4x Rev2 is sharper than the 700-200mm with the newer 2x Rev3, and a lot sharper in the midrange and corners. One cam imagine what the newer 1.4x Rev3 would look like on the 300mm, give the improved IQ I've seen of that extender on the 70-200 over it's older version.

Question is can post-workflow sharpening make enough of a difference to mitigate this.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 13, 2012)

mapboys said:


> I've been down this road and currently own both lenses in question. The answer I have for this issue is a 300mm f2.8 prime. Its a great lens and if you shoot consistently on the long end of either of these lenses the 300 with a 1.4x is a great combination. You still have autofocus and if 300 is too long, back up a few feet. My 100-400 is about to hit ebay and I never plan to put the 2X on the 70-200 again.
> 
> Bob Hulse



In a perfect world that sounds great. However the cost difference between the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II vs. the 300mm f/2.8 IS L II is a mere $5000, give or take a couple of hundred bucks. In other words, recommending the OP spend 3x the number of dollars isn't really an option, given his parameters clearly stated in his OP.

I mean, why not skip the whole 1.4x business and spend the $11,000 on the 400mm f/2.8 IS L II ??

I figure you mean well, but his OP defined his parameters and cost was clearly one of them.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 13, 2012)

PixelReaper said:


> According to the review and the ISO charts on TDP, the 1.4III see very limited IQ loss when mated with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs. the 70-300L
> 
> http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0



I don't know Pix, the 70-300 looks pretty significantly sharper to me.


----------



## PixelReaper (Feb 14, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> PixelReaper said:
> 
> 
> > According to the review and the ISO charts on TDP, the 1.4III see very limited IQ loss when mated with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs. the 70-300L
> ...



smirkypants- you are right
I agree, the 70-300 is at it's sharpest at 300 f/5.6. For me, I plan to spend more time using to 70-200 at f/2.8 in its native focal range, using the 1.4xIII or the 2xIII on fewer occasions when shooting wildlife. I guess if I was doing more wildlife and fewr portraits / lowlight shots of the kid, I would pick the 70-300 IQ. The 70-200 2.8 IS II + TC is a good comprimise for me since the wife will kill me if I were to buy both lenses!!!


----------



## Stewart Jones Photography (Feb 14, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> Like others, I wish someone that has the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 2x rev III extender would chime in.....maybe I'll take one for the team and be that person instead. ;D
> 
> If I do, I'll have to devise a set of tests to do a proper comparison, with input from folks here....BUT NOT YET!!! I have to examine budget first as I just added the Elinchrom 74" Octabank to my weapons.
> 
> ...



Done.

Although not a scientific test, when I got my 70-200 Mk2 and both Mk3 Extenders over a year ago, I rented a 100-400mm to do some field level comparisons.

Basically the tests consisted of two shooters shooting wildlife/surf shots using a 5D and a 5D2, switching back and forth between the 70-200 Mk2/1.4x Mk3, 70-200 Mk2/2.0x, and the 100-400mm on both bodies. Using LR3 to view RAW images, it was readily apparent which ones were taken with the 70-200/extenders vs the 100-400mm. The 100-400mm simply didn't have the same sharpness or image quality. It wasn't much of a surprise given the price difference, but it was interesting to see the difference in the images. Until the 200-400mm hits the shelves, I'll be sticking with my 70-200mm and using the Extenders when required. 

Cheers,

Scott


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 14, 2012)

PixelReaper said:


> According to the review and the ISO charts on TDP, the 1.4III see very limited IQ loss when mated with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs. the 70-300L



I agree to the other comments - the 70-200+extender iq actually looks plain horrible to me, given the weight and the price. But that's just me, I seldom print anything but have fun with my macro lens by using it as a digital microscope and looking at every pixel in the fly's eye.



PixelReaper said:


> However!! The second time I borrowed it, I had purchased a Custom SLR Strap, a sling style strap with the glide feature(similar to the BlackRapid)



This is certainly interesting - because the weight of a 70-200/2.8+extender is frightening to me - after all, at the moment I'm doing this for fun (I tried the advice "take a full 1.5 liter bottle and hold it in your left hand"). Maybe I find an opportunity to rent this heavy lens in Berlin and see for myself.



Stewart Jones Photography said:


> Although not a scientific test, when I got my 70-200 Mk2 and both Mk3 Extenders over a year ago, I rented a 100-400mm to do some field level comparisons.



The problem with these tests of one personal sample are of course production variance - you just don't know if you've got a good copy, let alone a "golden sample". One way is to compare one's lens with sample charts shots from the web and then get one's copy replaced if necessary.

... Which brings me to my question: In the U.S. there seem to be some quality mail order companies for photographic gear, but this is definitely not the case in Germany (please anyone correct me if I'm wrong). Mail order over here equals cheap and "we'll never do anything once we've got your money". On the other hand, store prices e.g. for the 70-300L are 200€ more - and as I wrote I'm not out to burn as much money as I can, I'd get a second 430EX2 flash for this price difference.

If I should happen to get a copy of a 70-300L with CAs or mediocre sharpness - what are your expericences with getting these replaced e.g. by Amazon? There must be many floating around, because I guess they don't trash these lenses but sell them to the next unfortunate customer. If the mail order company is not willing to replace, are these easily adjusted by Canon service for free?


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 14, 2012)

The 100-400 is a great lens and the push-pull zooming is fabulous.

Twisting a ring always moves the camera around when framing, and the push-pull does not.
It also means you can zoom and adjust focus at the same time.

I also use mine with a Kenko 2X to take shots of the moon, and the craters come out really sharp, but I do focus manually for these very long shots.

You can pickup good used 100-400's quite cheaply too, so it is worth a go.


----------



## samkatz (Feb 15, 2012)

*Response from a bird photographer's perspective*

Putting aside all the technical arguments over what's sharper than what, you have to ask what focal length do you need to capture bird images at all. Then the question is "what kind of birds?"

If you are shooting large birds like ducks and other waterfowl, herons, gulls even shorebirds that are fairly tame you can do w/a max of 300 on a 1.6x crop body. Some of my best shots are with the "lowly" Canon 70-300(non L)IS and the Tamron 70-300 VC. 

If you even hope to get any songbirds without sitting in a blind with a set up to bait the birds, you need at least the 400 w/1.6 crop.

With all the talk about the 100-400 IS L.not being sharp enough....well, most unsharp shots are due to camera movement/bad technique, not the lens IQ. You can stop this lens to F6.3 or 7.1, shoot either on a tripod, or handheld/monopod w/IS and get very sharp bird photos. Would you like an f-4 lens that will really throw the background out? That's thousands of dollars and many pounds to carry. With a slower lens you just have to be more careful in your composition, eg keeping some separation between the bird and the background.

I am biased against converters,meaning, if you need it once in a while fine, but if you're going to be using a lens most of the time at 400mm, get a lens that reaches that w/o the converter.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 15, 2012)

*Re: Response from a bird photographer's perspective*



samkatz said:


> Putting aside all the technical arguments over what's sharper than what, you have to ask what focal length do you need to capture bird images at all. Then the question is "what kind of birds?"
> 
> If you are shooting large birds like ducks and other waterfowl, herons, gulls even shorebirds that are fairly tame you can do w/a max of 300 on a 1.6x crop body. Some of my best shots are with the "lowly" Canon 70-300(non L)IS and the Tamron 70-300 VC.
> 
> ...



Try a 400 f/2.8 + 2x on a gimbal on a 1D4 - different world to a 100-400 hand held. The biggest problem with stopping down is getting fast enough shutter speed. High shutter speed is more key than high lens IQ unless you are aiming for wall size prints.


----------



## KeithR (Feb 15, 2012)

*Re: Response from a bird photographer's perspective*



briansquibb said:


> Try a 400 f/2.8 + 2x on a gimbal on a 1D4 - different world to a 100-400 hand held.



Well, in terms of weight, inconvenience, expense, unresponsiveness, hassle and general joylessness, that's true. 

In terms of IQ? Maybe not so much at all. 

With my 100-400mm (which is a good one, I admit) I've stood should-to-shoulder more times than I can count, with bird 'togs wielding 500mm and 600mm f/4s with TCs, the 800mm f/5.6, 300mm f/2.8 + TC, and umpteen other variations on the long lens theme, and almost without exception nobody has been able to pick out which images came from my zoom and which came from the Big Guns - it was quite a popular game we played, back in the day, on Birdforum.net.

And I've also lost count of the number of times I've seen an bird's eye-level photo op - shooting waders on their level on the beach at Titchwell in Norfolk for example - where I've been able to get down onto my belly, get the shot(s), and be up and and away to the next opportunity before the guy with the Gitzo, gimbal and big white bazooka has even been able to get his tripod legs spread flat out.

I can get lower than him too (lower is better for those shots), and that's assuming the bird is even still there by the time Mr Plenty-Money-To-Spend has managed to get his arse into gear.

The simple fact is that there are significant ergonomic disadvantages to using the full tripod/gimbal/long lens/TC approach in bird photography, and - frequently, assuming a good copy of the 100-400mm, some basic fieldcraft skills and good handholding technique (all of which I have, thanks) - often surprisingly little _Real World_ advantage from the "heavyweight" kit over the zoom and a more mobile, flexible approach, in IQ terms.

*It's not all about how much money you've spent on your kit...*


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 15, 2012)

*Re: Response from a bird photographer's perspective*



KeithR said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Try a 400 f/2.8 + 2x on a gimbal on a 1D4 - different world to a 100-400 hand held.
> ...



I can see all the top pros rushing to sell their large whites and buying a 100-400 following this piece of well informed advice.

I just can't see why I would want to get flat on the ground to take a bird in flight though?

If I was taking birds on a beach my weapon of choice would be a handheld 400 + beanbag. 

I dont think it is appropriate to be rude to people because of their choice of equipment any more than you would like people to be rude about you because of your kit.


----------



## Tijn (Feb 15, 2012)

*Re: Response from a bird photographer's perspective*



briansquibb said:


> I just can't see why I would want to get flat on the ground to take a bird in flight though?


Like he said, to be able to take pictures of birds "at their level". Probably to do with foreground/background framing.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 15, 2012)

*Re: Response from a bird photographer's perspective*



Tijn said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I just can't see why I would want to get flat on the ground to take a bird in flight though?
> ...



Perhaps it is just that most of the birds I take pictures of a fly above me - like herons, buzzards ec

If ground level was needed then the beanbag is the way to go - however it is difficult to spin round quickly when lying face down :

Here is a simple bird in flight picture taken recently, handheld 1d4 + 400 f/[email protected]/5


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 15, 2012)

You know, there's always the Sigma 120-300/2.8 + 1.4. I've no personal experience, but I've heard that relative to the 100-400 it's pretty good and the price is fairly reasonable. It gives you around 170mm-420mm focal range at f4. 

Maybe I'll rent it and see.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 15, 2012)

Just went into my garden and took this. Dont think a 100-400 would get close to this 8)


1d4, 400 f/2.8 + 2x


----------



## PixelReaper (Feb 15, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> You know, there's always the Sigma 120-300/2.8 + 1.4. I've no personal experience, but I've heard that relative to the 100-400 it's pretty good and the price is fairly reasonable. It gives you around 170mm-420mm focal range at f4.
> 
> Maybe I'll rent it and see.



After you mentioned this lens I checked it out at LR's. Downside is its a beast compared to other zooms and even some of the tele primes. 6lbs!!! 8)

Also Rogers take was that it is not sharp enough for prints over 8-10". He was comparing against the canon 300 f/2.8.


----------



## herbert (Feb 15, 2012)

PixelReaper said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > PixelReaper said:
> ...



The original link had the 70-200 + 1.4 @ f4. When they are both at f5.6 it is a bit more even:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

The zoom+extender shows less CA and distortion. However it is softer, particularly in the midframe.

I recently poured over these sample crops when deciding whether to buy the 2x extender for my 70-200 f2.8 or to buy the 400mm f5.6 for extra reach when birding. I decided on the 400mm f5.6 prime as a dedicated birding lens. However I do already have the zoom so this is less relevant to the OP.

I think that as Neuro demonstrated with his images either option will be able to deliver good images. The images will be far worse than the difference between them with slight mistakes during your image capture and workflow. I'd probably choose the 100-400 for its great versatility. Having to switch in and out an extender would get tedious. Get the lens, hone your technique and enjoy your photos.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Just went into my garden and took this. Dont think a 100-400 would get close to this



Not so sure...




EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 200




EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 125

Yes, it's 640mm vs. 1040mm FF-equivalent, but not too different in terms of pixels on target.


----------



## PixelReaper (Feb 15, 2012)

herbert said:


> PixelReaper said:
> 
> 
> > smirkypants said:
> ...



Good catch Herbert. At f/5.6 the center sharpness delta is pretty negligible. Also good point about using the lens with the desired native focal length/aperature . For me, that's 70-200 @ f/2.8 with only occasional 400mm f/5.6 use. 

By the way. I will be getting the 2xIII TC from lensrentals on thursday to test with the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II. I will try and post some 400mm samples over the weekend.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


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


I could have shot a larger bird to prove the point - those birds I took were 2 inches long .... the pigeon was bigger than full frame


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Yes, I could have shot a larger bird to prove the point - those birds I took were 2 inches long .... the pigeon was bigger than full frame



Good point - the warbler was ~4" long (although he fills the frame). The mockingbird was considerably bigger. I've got a nice great blue heron shot, too.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, it's 640mm vs. 1040mm FF-equivalent, but not too different in terms of pixels on target.



So do you think an image taken from the same distance with a 100-400 on an APS-C will be as good IQ as a 400 f/2.8 + 2x on a 1.3/ff?

It would be a big crop on the APS-C which does not help the bg blur at all


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Here is a simple bird in flight picture taken recently, handheld 1d4 + 400 f/[email protected]/5



Nobody disputes that taking low-iso pictures of moving objects requires extremely expensive gear. And with your equipment, I guess you earned the "richest person in the thread" award. However, I opened this thread "Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L" because of budget considerations - but you can feel free to open another thread "Best bird shots with the most expensive gear"...



briansquibb said:


> Just went into my garden and took this. Dont think a 100-400 would get close to this 8)



I think your second shot of a sitting bird is just average - you don't need 2.8 for that, in fact the opposite: the dof pane of 2.8 is too thin (not every bird is directly in front of a backgound that has to be blurred). And no one needs gear that cost as much as a trip around the world for that - you can also just move closer. I recently took a similar shot with my non-is 100 macro lens (well, actually it was sharper than yours ). Btw, I don't post my pictures because I think these are too individual to judge lenses, and a picture contest is not helpful to me.



PixelReaper said:


> I agree, the 70-300 is at it's sharpest at 300 f/5.6. For me, I plan to spend more time using to 70-200 at f/2.8 in its native focal range, using the 1.4xIII or the 2xIII on fewer occasions when shooting wildlife.



To throw in some constructive pieces of information once in a while - I just came back from my local electro store where I had a try with the popular "big white leneses" on my crop body. Of course these were random samples of these lenses, but I'll post my results anyway because iq is not everything:

* 70-200/2.8is2 + extender: For me, this is just too front-heavy (very long, nearly 2kg!) for a 60D, and my left arm hurt after one minute. Furthermore, the iq with the extenders (tried 1,4x & 2x) was quite bad because of massive CAs - I admit in a worst-case scenario, shooting skylights in a shop. CAs can be correctly easily in LR4, but well, they're there. For a crop body (!), I don't think this is a good combination, even as an intermediary step before upgrading to full frame. I agree to many other people: An extender seems to be a nice occasional add-on, but if you want 300 or 400 get a native lens.

* 100-400: Seems to be quite nice if you like the push-pull (and apparently its zoom creep). Quite front-heavy on a 60D, too. iq seems to be ok. The real question for me is here: "Do I need the 300-400 range or the 70-100 for less lens changes?"

* 100-300: This is obviously (also) made for crop bodies, it is apparent the second you put this lens on a 60D. Because of short lenght, it is very balanced, iq is just fine, and even f4 instead of f4.5 @100mm. I'll get this one, because I think I can get quite far when using 300mm on a crop body and then cut out the part I want out of a sharp picture. And I'll be happy every time I can put this short lens + body in my backpack without a problem.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Nobody disputes that taking low-iso pictures of moving objects requires extremely expensive gear. And with your equipment, I guess you earned the "richest person in the thread" award. However, I opened this thread "Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L" because of budget considerations - but you can feel free to open another thread "Best bird shots with the most expensive gear"...



I was responding to a post that suggested the opposite



Marsu42 said:


> I think your second shot of a sitting bird is just average - you don't need 2.8 for that, in fact the opposite: the dof pane of 2.8 is too thin (not every bird is directly in front of a backgound that has to be blurred). And no one needs gear that cost as much as a trip around the world for that - you can also just move closer. I recently took a similar shot with my non-is 100 macro lens (well, actually it was sharper than yours ). Btw, I don't post my pictures because I think these are too individual to judge lenses, and a picture contest is not helpful to me.



As stated this was taken with a 400 f/2.8 + 2x - so was taken at f/5.6 It was also taken on sRAW as I was trying for BIF

As for moving closer - I was about 6ft from this 2inch bird. Closer would not have worked as it would have flown.

OK no more pictures then from me.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> As stated this was taken with a 400 f/2.8 + 2x - so was taken at f/5.6



Yup, you're right - thanks for reminding me, I obviously have no experience using a converter  ... as for posting pictures, there's no harm posting a link to a flickr account, I just think they irritate a bit esp. when they are quoted for the n-th time 

As for stepping closer, my very personal experience from the outdoors is that many birds are quite tame if I move very, very, very slowly towards them - or I would never have gotten any good shots w/ my 100mm lens. This obviously isn't true if anyone has build a camo shelter, wants to shoot a specific bird and does this for a living, then you'll really need a long tele lens.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> * 70-200/2.8is2 + extender: For me, this is just too front-heavy (very long, nearly 2kg!) for a 60D, and my left arm hurt after one minute.



I guess we all have different experiences, but, for the benefit of anyone else who may read this and is considering a 70-200 2.8 IS II, I'll offer the opposite view. I've had my 70-200 2.8 IS II since last summer and while it weighs more than my 50 or 16-35, I have no problem shooting sports for hours using the exact same set up 60D 70-200. (sometimes with an extender). YMMV.


----------



## herbert (Feb 15, 2012)

This thread has discussed a lot about how good the images from each lens can be. This seems to be a mute point given that all of them can produce good images. 

I find a better differentiator of equipment is how many images you miss. No one ever talks about the ones that got away. This will then favour the lenses with IS for low light (allowing more shutter speed options) and responsive and consistent autofocus. In this respect I would expect a more modern lens to perform better. However it requires a lot of field testing and not a few sample shots of a test chart/static subject. Anyone have any thoughts on the keeper rate under difficult shooting circumstances for the 70-200+2x verses the 70-300L or 100-400L?

I'd be very annoyed if I kept missing moments because the lens I use was not consistent and accurate.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 15, 2012)

herbert said:


> Anyone have any thoughts on the keeper rate under difficult shooting circumstances for the 70-200+2x verses the 70-300L or 100-400L?



I can only speak to the 70-200. With the 2x III extender, it's far from lightning fast, whereas with the 1.4 isn't not bad, as everyone knows without an extender it's lightning fast, but it's also not 400mm at that point. Granted I'm only using a 60D, so perhaps a 1DIV/1DX would have better results.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2012)

bigblue1ca said:


> I've had my 70-200 2.8 IS II since last summer and [...] I have no problem shooting sports for hours using the exact same set up 60D 70-200. (sometimes with an extender). YMMV.



It's interesting to hear different perspectives - that's why I'm writing this, after all. But I have to ask again after my test with the 70-200/2.8+extender combination (and I'm your average strength guy): You shoot *hours* without a pause and without a monopod? Did your endurance improve by usage compared to the point when you bought the lens?



herbert said:


> Anyone have any thoughts on the keeper rate under difficult shooting circumstances for the 70-200+2x verses the 70-300L or 100-400L?



A couple of questions:

* Isn't the keeper rate more dependent on the af-quality of the body than the one in the lens (if you've got a somewhat current ring-type USM, that is)?
* Or does the body only matter when using servo af, and the lens matters more for one-shot af?
* Is a fast af equal to a precise af?


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> You shoot *hours* without a pause and without a monopod? Did your endurance improve by usage compared to the point when you bought the lens?



Q1) I don't shoot for hours without taking the camera away from my eye if that's what you are asking, I wouldn't want to do that with a P&S let along a DSLR with a 70-200...lol. I shoot for hours in the sense that I regularly shoot between one to three games in a row depending on the day of hockey or ringette (and last fall soccer sometimes). All of which involve continuously following the action (usually following the puck, ring, or ball) and looking through the viewfinder/lens at the same time. 

Q2) I don't know if it's a case so much of my endurance improved, as I don’t think that was a issue for me. But, it did take a little to get used to holding the camera and lens, when I wasn’t previously used to holding a larger lens. But to put this all in perspective, one of the reasons I love the 70-200 is the weight of it, I just like the way it feels to hold, it's nice and stable. When I'm shooting sports or anything for that matter, I don't even notice the camera or lens weight, it doesn't bother me and I'm focused on getting the shots I want and the action. 

I've never used a monopod or even thought of using one, as I’m not uncomfortable; if I ever got a 400 2.8 I'd certainly look at that. When shooting sports, I only use a hand strap on the camera, the Canon E2. If I'm out for the day hiking, walking about, or visiting the zoo, I use my Black Rapid strap and find it very comfortable to carry my camera and the lens.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 16, 2012)

I don't know why you all think you need a super long lens to take pictures of birds. This is just at 50mm!! 8) 8) 8)


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I don't know why you all think you need a super long lens to take pictures of birds. This is just at 50mm!!



Now, apart from the good ol' picture contest: A pigeon doesn't qualify as your prototypical bird, I could shoot that 1:1 at macro distance. Btw, if you were using a crop body the shot was taken at 80mm. And nobody said you can *only* take bird shots w/ a superlong tele, but the "hit rate" is better because there is the rumour that real wild animals (i.e. not city pigeons) do frighten sometimes  ... in addition, there is a difference between shooting *any* bird near you and looking for a *specific* rare one.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 16, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I don't know why you all think you need a super long lens to take pictures of birds. This is just at 50mm!! 8) 8) 8)



I am amazed you got such a steady picture without IS ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 0
> I am amazed you got such a steady picture without IS ;D ;D ;D ;D



I know this from my non-is macro: just take a couple of pictures and select the sharpest one - as long as the object doesn't fly away, that's no problem at all.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> in addition, there is a difference between shooting *any* bird near you and looking for a *specific* rare one.


These lovely creatures aren't rare?


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

Stewart Jones Photography said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > Like others, I wish someone that has the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 2x rev III extender would chime in.....maybe I'll take one for the team and be that person instead. ;D
> ...



Thank you sir....very much appreciated.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 16, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I don't know why you all think you need a super long lens to take pictures of birds. This is just at 50mm!! 8) 8) 8)



;D But, for a picture of a pigeon I really like the light and colours.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 29, 2012)

Hi all,

I got my 70-300L a few days ago am report back with my experiences as promised. Generally, I'm very happy and would like to apologize for stirring up so much dust. But: better safe than sorry, esp. if a price it as the far end of one's budget. 

I compared it with test shots at min. focal distance to my copy of a 100mm macro (non-L) which imho is as sharp as it gets on this 18MP sensor because I can count the pixels when using f6.3-f7.1. This 70-300L is just as sharp and much sharper at open aperture. Looking at my "real life" shots, I can only concur to this observation - if I can see every feather of a bird in detail, that's enough for me. Even the af is spot-on without afam on my 60D body, but that might be easier w/ f4 than w/ f2.8. It does show some CAs at high contrast borders and open aperture, but these are easily corrected by software.

Before anyone freaks out: The 200-300 range does not make that much difference and I would be tempted if anyone would swap this for a 70-200/2.8is2+1.4ex or 300/2.8 for free - but that's not likely to happen . My other impressions:

* The lens is still balanced w/ my 60D, but I guess a 7D might even be a little better. Because of the short lens size, the weight is near the body so it creates little torsion. If a lens gets any longer and/or heavier I would insist on getting paid for this. Even after one day out my right arm feels a little longer - and considering this mass, it might work as a self defense weapon when being attacked by a wild boar.

* This might come as a surprise to some: I like the reversed af/zoom rings better, because I can override the af at the point where my middle finger is on top of the lens anyway. I don't see how I'd accidentally defocus it with my current technique. Arguably, the zoom ring is not reachable with the lens hood on reverse, and zooming requires hand movement - but I generally crop the pictures afterwards anyway, so setting a zoom length and then using it like a semi-prime is just up my alley. 

* This won't be a surprise to most: The build quality and IS is stellar, and while I would generally prefer an internal zoom like the 70-200 lenses this 70-300 is so short that it still fits in my bike bag I'm always carrying around. It is not a "shoot moving objects in the dark" lens, but it does what I'd expect from a red ring: it has top performance at open aperture. So if an objects is stationary for a moment, it works even for wildlife at lower light as long as the dof of f4-f5.6 is not too thin.

My positive conclusion: I still don't own a big white lens, it's a big grey lens  ... and for aps-c and my preferences, the size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff is just right. If I ever need a faster lens with less dof, I'll get a really fast f2 or less prime with the money I saved from skipping the 70-200is2.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Mar 2, 2012)

Tijn said:


> Also, birds generally aren't low-light situations, so f/5.6 at that range would seem to me not to pose any problems.


That's not what I see when I shoot birds. Small ones love to hide in bushes and tangles of branches. Then there's the matter of shooting during the interesting "magic hours" after sunrise or before sunset. Even in daylight, though, you might find yourself wanting more than f/5.6 for stopping action.

To the OP, I would consider the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS. I have it with an EF Extender 2X III, but if you could get away with using just the Extender 1.4X the results would be even better. It's an amazing lens without the extender, too, of course.


----------



## KeithR (Mar 3, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:


> That's not what I see when I shoot birds. Small ones love to hide in bushes and tangles of branches. Then there's the matter of shooting during the interesting "magic hours" after sunrise or before sunset. Even in daylight, though, you might find yourself wanting more than f/5.6 for stopping action.



Yep, with you all the way there, Edwin.



> To the OP, I would consider the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS. I have it with an EF Extender 2X III, but if you could get away with using just the Extender 1.4X the results would be even better. It's an amazing lens without the extender, too, of course.



I'm now using the Siggy + TCs (having moved up from an excellent Canon 100-400m) and it's a _stunning_ lens.


----------



## KeithR (Mar 3, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Just went into my garden and took this. Dont think a 100-400 would get close to this 8) 1d4, 400 f/2.8 + 2x


Ahem...

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/020112/desert_wheatear_newbiggin_8a.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/151011/black_headed_gull_marden_2a.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/turnstone_bridlington_2a.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/knot_bridlington_2.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/carrion_crow_bridlington_1a.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/gannet_bempton_1.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/herring_gull_bempton_1.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/tree_sparrow_bempton%20_1.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/tree_sparrow_bempton_7.jpg

All with the 7D and 100-400mm. Some - like the Carrion crow, including a 1.4x TC.

And on this:



> I could have shot a larger bird to prove the point - those birds I took were 2 inches long


Blue tits are actually a _massive_ 4 1/2 inches long.

Now these Goldcrests, they're only 3 1/2 inches long - smallest UK bird, and _much_ more hyperactive than Blue tits - and the 100-400mm + 7D did just fine, as always...

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_7b.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_12.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_1.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_4.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_3.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_2.jpg

1600 ISO, too.

Oh, and - purely subjectively of course - I think that any of the examples in this post (and I've got thousands and thousands more) are better than your Blue tit shot in sharpness, detail and IQ terms. The Exif is in all of them, and you'll see that they're pretty much all at f/6.3 or f/5.6 - no stopping right down to squeeze some sharpness out of the lens - and are all _handheld_ at 400mm, or 560mm for the ones with a TC.

*I'll say it gain: the quality of the end result isn't predicated on how much money you spend on the kit...*


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 4, 2012)

KeithR said:


> All with the 7D and 100-400mm. Some - like the Carrion crow, including a 1.4x TC. I'll say it gain: the quality of the end result isn't predicated on how much money you spend on the kit...



Question: I've got the 70-300L which is up to 5,6 too, and am thinking about getting a TC (the Kenko one). The af on your 7D doesn't work with the TC on the 100-400 either, correct? What's your experience with manual focus, does it ruin many shots? Apart from my macro shots, the last time I used mf on a tele was in the analog times when I had a focusing screen in the camera...

And: +1 for your comment on the money-shot relation. It's great if people with the appropriate budget get top gear, and in difficult circumstances it is the only way to get good shots. However, I think it is important that it is known that gear in the medium price range might produce the same results in your average everyday shots. That might prevent people with less bucks to spend to save some and not be driven into buying only the best - If I wanted that advice I'd simply visit my local photo store.

PS: Nice bird shots, actually they look a lot like mine with the 70-300L whose iq seems to be like your 100-400L ... but of course my tele range w/o TC requires a lot more crawling towards the subject


----------



## KeithR (Mar 4, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> The af on your 7D doesn't work with the TC on the 100-400 either, correct?



Actually, it _does_ work , Marsu - tape the pins and use off-centre AF points, and it's really pretty good for a workaround - this (a football team mascot) is 560mm _handheld at 1/50 and 3200 ISO_.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 4, 2012)

KeithR said:


> *I'll say it gain: the quality of the end result isn't predicated on how much money you spend on the kit...*



So you decided to have a go at me because I have more expensive kit? You dont know what kit I have or what I have spent on it so it is a stupid remark to make

If I had thought this was going to be a photo competition I would have take a bit more care - hand held 400 f/2.8 +2x using sRaw will never win a competition. I have used the 100-400 and 7D so know its IQ limitations - I guess that is why it isn't the favourite for top BIF shooters 

I think you will find the blue tit is the smallest common bird in an average English garden. But I am sure you know that. Hardly a massive bird though is it? - body about 2-1/2 inches which is the measurement I use for DOF calculations.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> So you decided to have a go at me because I have more expensive kit?


Your remark wasn't meant for me, but that is the reason why I never post pictures - you can get good pictures out of every gear, but of course you can only get the best pictures in difficult situations from top gear. If I had the money, I'd get fast primes this instant - the reason I'm occasionally posting some advice is because I'd like tell people from my experience what gear to get with a limited budget.



KeithR said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > The af on your 7D doesn't work with the TC on the 100-400 either, correct?
> ...


Thanks for the link! I guess taping the pins also kills the additional exif data that is provided by the tc? Or does it even remove all exif data from the lens?


----------



## Flake (Mar 4, 2012)

Unfortunately fast glass means extra weight so you have to decide on your compromise & what is most important to you, you can have one or the other, but not both.

If you want speed then the Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 EX OS is difficult to beat, especially as no one else makes a zoom like it. With a 1.4X it becomes a 170 - 420mm f/4 similar to the focal length of the Canon 200 - 400 f/4 but a fraction of the price, or with a 2X TC it becomes a 240 - 600mm f/5.6 this is the cheapest way to get to 600mm & still retain autofocus, images are still of a commercial quality with this set up. Second hand lenses can be had at quite a saving.

Then there's the superb & under rated Sigma 100 - 300mm F/4 EX no OS on this one but it's a real performer and because it's not well known second hand prices are really attractive. It will take a 1.4X TC and then becomes a 140 - 420mm F/5.6 a 2X will not autofocus. Weight is pretty good at 1.44Kg This lens rated a highly reccomended at Photozone.

Or there's the 50 - 500mm F/4.5 - 6.3 'Bigma' a huge zoom range with decent image quality, but it is slow. Avoid the 150 - 500mm version which is not well regarded.

Canons L lenses are of course very nice and the obvious choice, but they are expensive and other options are worth consideration.


----------



## KeithR (Mar 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> So you decided to have a go at me because I have more expensive kit?



No, I'm having a go at you _always_ banging on about your self-evident belief that photographers - and the quality of their results - are _intrinsically defined by_ how much their gear cost.

I'm not remotely impressed by people who expect to be taken seriously simply because they've got expensive kit - the pictures do the talking...


----------



## KeithR (Mar 4, 2012)

Flake said:


> If you want speed then the Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 EX OS is difficult to beat, especially as no one else makes a zoom like it. With a 1.4X it becomes a 170 - 420mm f/4 similar to the focal length of the Canon 200 - 400 f/4 but a fraction of the price, or with a 2X TC it becomes a 240 - 600mm f/5.6 this is the cheapest way to get to 600mm & still retain autofocus, images are still of a commercial quality with this set up.



Absolutely - that's the lens/TC combo I'm using now, and it's superb. I'll happily put the IQ I'm getting from that lens and the 7D up against any camera/lens out there.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 4, 2012)

KeithR said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > So you decided to have a go at me because I have more expensive kit?
> ...



Perhaps it would have been best if you had left it to your pictures to do the talking


----------



## FarQinell (Mar 6, 2012)

I once tried a Canon 1.4X converter on the Canon 70-200mm f4 IS (which matches the f2.8 in sharpness - obviously from f4!) and the results were not especially good!

Basically putting a bog standard TC between your zoom - even a good one - and your camera is not going to work very well.

Even very good TCs will only give decent results if used with top quality prime lenses where secondary spectrum is fully suppressed.

So if you want 400 on a zoom its definitely the 100-400mm L lens that you will need - its only slightly less sharp than the 400/5.6 which itself is a very sharp lens.


----------

