100-400 VS 70-200 (1.4x & 2x) - Seem Right?

[JLS Photo]

Today I finally had the chance to compare my 100-400L IS to my 70-200L 2.8 IS (on my 20D) across the range focal range of 100 to 400 using various combination of Extenders and no Extenders.

Much to my surprise and dismay, I found my sample of the 100-400 to be as sharp or sharper than my 70-200 IS at all test focal lengths and apertures. The test was conducted against the 70-200 solely, the 70-200 with 1.4X Extender II, and the 70-200 with 2X Extender II.

Unfortunately, I tend to think my 70-200 IS may need some servicing as I expect it to out perform the 100-400 in the 100-200mm range (and perhaps up to 280).

Please have a look at the posted 100% crop samples and give me your thoughts.

Is my test flawed? Does the 70-200 need service? Any other thoughts?

The test is located in the Buying Guide Gallery (first one) here: http://www.pbase.com/jlsphoto

[defordphoto]

Any test where you view sharpness on a video monitor is flawed. You can detect only subtle differences at this resolution. The real meat is ihn the prints.

That being said, I don't think the 100-400 and the 70-200 are that far away from each other in sharpness anyway. So, without some laboratory results with graphs and charts and other details that no one understands, yes, your test is flawed.

Best option: quit measurebating and pixel-peeping and just get out an shoot.

[JLS Photo]

RFM, agreed, subtle variations are really a non-issue.

However, what I hoped to do was convince myself that the 70-200 + 2X was "close enough" to the quality of the 100-400 at 400mm to justify getting rid of the 100-400. However, just the contrary, I've found that the 70-200 +2X is just not even close to the quality of the 100-400 at 300-400mm.

Anyway, I realize this is considered "measurbating", but I find it helpful to get a comparison of my equipment.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm with RFM on this,.. to me the 100-400 is as sharp a zoom as I have used.

Yes the 70-200mm f/2.8 is also razor sharp... but I don't perceive it to be a lot better than the 100-400mm.. in fact.. I see no perceptable advantage in sharpness at all with use.


I took a quick look at some of your test images.. and all that I saw mentioned using software sharpening... which in my mind makes your test images posted useless for anyone to judge lens performance? The tests have been "colored" by "Intellesharpen"

Anyway.. I too own and use both lenses.. it has never occurred to me to try a side by side test,. as I am very happy with the results from both.

Lastly.. the 100-400mm IS will definately be sharper than the 70-200mm with any T-con in my experience. Although the 70-200mm is probably the best zoom around to use a T-con with.. it still can't hold up to that kind of scrutiny.

[defordphoto]

JLS: The 2x TC is probably the worst purchase I have ever made. I also have the 1.4, the 100-400 and the 70-200 2.8 IS. The 2x TC on the 70-200 does not come close. The 1.4 TC rocks on any lens that can accept it. It's been fun to use the 1.4 on the 100-400 with the MKII and still have AF. It performs quite well.

However, having both the 70-200 and 100-400 are, as you have learned, two different tools. I even have the 400 5.6 and still will not dump the 100-400. All three lenses have their uses independent of each other and I'd not give a one of them up for anything.

Ummm...maybe for a 400 2.8... :)

[JLS Photo]

Thanks, Jim.

Having seen my results, I'm am thinking about returning the 2X (just received it today). Although, I agree, the 1.4x is very nice. That is a keeper.

Given the quality of the 2X, it looks like both the 100-400 and 70-200 will remain in my bag.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts. It was a fun exercise nonetheless and educational to see comparative results (for me).

[Scottes]

I have to agree with RFM & CDS. I also have all 3 lenses (though the non-IS 70-200) and don't want to part with any of them. Send back the 2x, IMHO, unless you have a *real* desire to go 800mm f/11 manual focus just to see what it's like.

Actually, I'd try that just for giggles and then probably send it back.

[defordphoto]

Hehe..I have used the 2x on maybe a half dozen shots. The results were ok. I still have mine, just in case I need that 800-plus (depending on what crop factor camera I am using).

[defordphoto]

JLS: Take that $200 and put it towards the 50 1.4. Whenever I get in lens buying mode again, that's the one I'll get. And yes, I do have the 50 1.8 already.

[Scottes]

I'd like to try one someday. I've put the 1.4 on the 400 prime and even done handheld manual focus with it. MF aside (20D), the combo still manages to be quite excellent.

I've yet to put the 1.4 on the 70-200 but why bother when I have the 100-400?

[defordphoto]

I've yet to put the 1.4 on the 70-200 but why bother when I have the 100-400?

The only reason I(we) have used that combination is I support two shooters. My wife also shoots. So, before I got the 400 prime, she was shooting the 70-200 and 1.4TC while I was shooting the 100-400.

As I write this I think I need to re-visit my old friend (100-400) with the MKII. I have not shot with that combination yet.

[Adam Hicks]

I thought about the 70-200, but with the quality of the 100-400, and it having IS already, I don't see much use for a 70-200. Sure it's a brighter lens, and I'll bet the IS version is fantastic, but I guess unless I was shooting weddings I'll never have a use for the 70-200 over the 100-400, and when I DO start shooting weddings I'll be using the 85mm 1.2 and 50mm 1.4 anyways.... and maybe the 135 2.0, but not the 70-200.

Adam

[defordphoto]

Like I said, they serve two different worlds. And they both deliver very well. Not sure what wedding shoots have to do with this topic, but I agree that the 85 1.2 and 50 1.4 would work well.

[Adam Hicks]

My point was along the lines of why anyone would want a 70-200 vs. a 100-400 when the 100-400 IS buys you so much more focal length. If you want to talk about bokeh at 200mm 2.8, I think it's beat by 400mm at 5.6.

Just a curiousity.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 2X is really only "usefull" on a really fast prime.. even then it's not the best.. but that seems to be the only situation where owning may pay off.

Even on the f/4.5 500mm it is of little use..

...But I was in for a surprise when I put it on the 200mm f/1.8 Suddenly the 2X was quite nice indeed :) :shock:

[defordphoto]

My point was along the lines of why anyone would want a 70-200 vs. a 100-400 when the 100-400 IS buys you so much more focal length. If you want to talk about bokeh at 200mm 2.8, I think it's beat by 400mm at 5.6.

Just a curiousity.

My point is there is no point to compare a 100-400 and a 70-200 (f/2.8) for focal length. As for bokeh, I'd guess that'd be another thread, and a much better comparison than focal length, IMO.

Unfortunately, my pixel-peeping days are over and I'll not initiate that test. I'd be very interested in viewing your tests however.

[CyberDyneSystems]

My point was along the lines of why anyone would want a 70-200 vs. a 100-400 when the 100-400 IS buys you so much more focal length. If you want to talk about bokeh at 200mm 2.8, I think it's beat by 400mm at 5.6.

Just a curiousity.

Likewise.. I and many photographers have need of a fast mid telephoto zoom for certain applications. The two lenses are simply not used for the same subjects/tasks.

There are many times when the 100-400mm is simply not fast enough. I would never dream of trying to use one in the situations where I use the f/2.8

[Adam Hicks]

Ok.. and I'm not trying to be a smarta$$ here, I'm just looking for information. What situation would you need that 70-200 2.8 that you couldn't use the 100-400L? Shooting at dusk? Shooting a wedding? That's what I'm trying to nail down. What justifies carrying along both reasonably large lenses when I would think that the 100-400 would be a better fit for most everything. Only loses 30mm low and doubles the long end.

Of course I'd rather carry your 200mm 1.8! :)

But edumacate me. Where would a 100-400 just not work, when a 70-200 would? (and I won't bring up bumping ISO levels to 400 or 800 now that the 20D does it so well)

Thanks!
Adam

[CyberDyneSystems]

Low light situations where f/5.6 would mean no photo at all.

All of these were either ISO 800 or 1600 and @ f2.8 I usually get only just BARELY enough shutter to stop motion... in fact for every one of these I get that is a keeper.. there are several tossers.

http://cyberdynesystemsimaging.fotopic.net/p7222581.html

http://cyberdynesystemsimaging.fotopic.net/p544799.html

http://carmenpremier.fotopic.net/p5023608.html

http://carmenpremier.fotopic.net/p5023639.html

http://carmenpremier.fotopic.net/p1398770.html

I have absolutley no problem saying that with a 100-400mm IS I would not have getten ANY of the images above... I know.. before I owned an f2.8 I tried with slower lenses.. none of those images were ever really usable.

The most recent event I tried to shoot even the f2.8 was not fast enough.. I was maxed at ISO 3200 and praying for moments when the dancers would pause for a beat.. trying to time the shots (I allways do that) but in this case it was futile.. and even todays best cameras still look "poopy" at ISO 3200 :wink:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh.. FYI.. if outdoor wildlife type stuff is whats on your mind.. then I would tend to agree that the 70-200mm is not "required"

But it did get me this after sunset;

http://cyberdynesystemsimaging.fotopic.net/p1214025.html

[chris.bailey]

A couple of other thoughts.

a) the focus is faster on the 70-200/2.8 than the 100-400, which tends to hunt around when the light gets a bit iffy.

b) the 70-200/2.8 and 1.4x give a nice zoom range AND the option of some speed, that goes easily in a large toploader. In the UK at this time of year it never seems to get much beyond dawn before dusk sets in again so that makes for a nice combination.

With the above provisos, if the light is right the 100-400 is the long zoom king.

[Cadwell]

Ok.. and I'm not trying to be a smarta$$ here, I'm just looking for information. What situation would you need that 70-200 2.8 that you couldn't use the 100-400L? Shooting at dusk? Shooting a wedding? That's what I'm trying to nail down. What justifies carrying along both reasonably large lenses when I would think that the 100-400 would be a better fit for most everything. Only loses 30mm low and doubles the long end.

Of course I'd rather carry your 200mm 1.8! :)

But edumacate me. Where would a 100-400 just not work, when a 70-200 would? (and I won't bring up bumping ISO levels to 400 or 800 now that the 20D does it so well)

Thanks!
Adam

Well I don't have the 70-200 f/2.8 ( I have the F/4 ) but I do have a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX and that gets a hell of a lot of use at race tracks in the late afternoon, early morning or pouring rain where the f/5.6 of the 100-400L is just too slow to let me get the shots with reasonable shutter speed.

In fact, if the Sigma wasn't so heavy (it's twice the weight of the 100-400L) I'd probably leave the 100-400L at home but hand holding the Sigma all day simply isn't an option for me.

So yeah, fast f/2.8 zooms have their uses... and believe me, if I didn't think it was necessary I wouldn't be carrying that lump of a Sigma about. ;)