70-200 2.8 L and 2x or 100-400 L IS??

Ok, I did search the forums for comparisons and see a lot about all the 70-200s and one that compared the non-IS 2.8 to the 100-400. Im still confused and undecided. Here is my question....

Which to get, the 70-200 2.8 and the 2x converter or the 100-400 IS?

If the 70-200 2.8, the IS or non-IS? Since it is a heavy lens, will I really be walking around with it anyways?

I of course can only get one for now. Would I want both if I had the 2x to go with the 70-200?

Was also considering the Bigma at some point for that extra reach. No IS but after 200mm how often do you use the IS feature anyways? Would probably be using a tripod at that point.

Too many decisions! As for what I shoot, I honestly do mostly landscape and architecture which is why I am getting the Tokina 12-24mm (the 24-135 IS just doesnt cut it on the 10D). I like shooting wildlife but my 100-300 usually does not give me the reach I need for things like deer and small birds so although I enjoy, I have not had much luck with sharp, close shots. Hopefully my confusion didnt confuse you all too much! Any suggestions on a good lens set up would be greatly appreciated.

The longer the focal length, the more you need IS. After you add a 2X TC to a f2.8, you have basically converted it to the same max f-stop as the 100-400. I have the 70-200 f2.8 and given your requirements, I would buy the 100-400 or the bigma over the 70-200 with TC. I use the 70-200 by itself quite often so it was worthwhile for me to get the lens and I just couldn't swing getting an expensive long zoom.

Like many with the 70-200, I got the TC as a stopgap measure to see how it did and forestall having to buy a longer zoom for a while. Now that I've used the TC for several months (shooting sports), I'm ready to buy a longer zoom. While using Neat Image makes up for the added noise from having to use 800 to 1600 ISO with f9 to f11 aperatures when using the TC and USM helps get the image to printable clarity, the TC makes the wonderful 70-200 almost like the consumer grade 100-300 (with the same lower light and shadow detail loss problems).

Go with the 100-400 or bigma or even the Tamron 200-500 over the 70-200 + 2X TC. You don't seem to have a need for the 70-200 as a standalone lens for what you mainly photograph so get a zoom you don't need a TC for.

go with the 100 - 400. I use a 70 - 200 non IS mounted on a 1d and on it's own it's pin sharp with great contrast and colour, when I need the extra length I used to use a 2x but was always disappointed with the results, lack of contrast, and overall sharpness was lacking, to much post processing to get an image I was happy with. Now I use a 300 F4 either on the 1d or a 20d if I need the extra reach. If I need super reach, then I fit the 2x to the 1d and the 300f4 (so I retain auto focus), and this combo retains 98% of the sharpness the 300 on it's own

Thanks guys. After reading all of the old posts here and on other forums, I think Im just going to have to get BOTH the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-400. I really want the faster, brighter lens since I do a lot of low light photography and unless Im specifically looking for birds (which I dont do often, at least not yet, because I am clueless about birds) or deer in the fall (the only time I can find them guaranteed during any drive) I rarely use the extra focal length. There have been times I've wished I had had that 400 or 500mm lens, but in general it they are not the shots I go after at this time. I went through my website and realized that I did not have one image posted that was taken with anything longer than the 24-135IS!

So, I guess the 100-400 is a given to get for wildlife, even over the Bigma (seems it comes to IS or reach and I have shakey hands). Now, do I want the IS or non-IS 70-200?? The IS is gonna break the bank, but maybe I should just buy it now and get it over with??

And since I tend to shoot in the wider angle range, I will probably get the 70-200 first since I of course cannot get both at once LOL Any thoughts? Do I sound like Im on the right track?

I use my monopod for the 70-200 f2.8 L. I would like to try the IS version.

Ive decided on the 70-200 2.8 IS ....AND...the 100-400. Doing the longer one first so I am covered from 12-400mm until I can save up enough and get the 70-200 IS. Sounds like a plan

Have a look at this.http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/400v400.shtml

malla1962 wrote:
Have a look at this.http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/400v400.shtml

Reviewed that last night. I am pretty picky with my images and there is no WAY I would accept that LOL Sooo, I took the costly route and ordered the 100-400 and will get the 70-200 2.8 IS next (This way I am covered all the way to 400mm....hoping to "shoot" a good deer this fall!) I may eventually get the 1.4x if I feel the need to get a little extra reach but Im hoping the 400 will cover it.

Thanks!

KarinaB1970 wrote:
Reviewed that last night. I am pretty picky with my images and there is no WAY I would accept that LOL Sooo, I took the costly route and ordered the 100-400 and will get the 70-200 2.8 IS next (This way I am covered all the way to 400mm....hoping to "shoot" a good deer this fall!) I may eventually get the 1.4x if I feel the need to get a little extra reach but Im hoping the 400 will cover it.

Thanks!

Hope this link shows what you plan to "shoot"' with the 100-400.
Good luck
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=100619
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=101244

KarinaB1970 wrote:
Reviewed that last night. I am pretty picky with my images and there is no WAY I would accept that LOL Sooo, I took the costly route and ordered the 100-400 and will get the 70-200 2.8 IS next (This way I am covered all the way to 400mm....hoping to "shoot" a good deer this fall!) I may eventually get the 1.4x if I feel the need to get a little extra reach but Im hoping the 400 will cover it.

Thanks!

That is the way i went in the end.Got both.

Thanks Mala for the link to Lumninous landscapes article.....
i was also torn between 100-400, 70-200+2xTC & Bigma. What I cannot understand is hy they call bigma slow & 70-200 fast. Let us just compare 100-400 range.
1. 100-400 is f/4-5.6
2. 70-200+2XTC is 140-400 f/5.6
3. simga 50-500 f/4-6.3 in the range 100-400 will also be f/4-5.6

so form the above comparison it looks like 2 is slowest .........

between 100-400 range 2 looks slowest to me as it is f/5.6 in whole range

Sajjad -- see >>>this<<< helpful post from fStopJojo.

KarinaB1970 wrote:
Reviewed that last night. I am pretty picky with my images and there is no WAY I would accept that LOL Sooo, I took the costly route and ordered the 100-400 and will get the 70-200 2.8 IS next (This way I am covered all the way to 400mm....hoping to "shoot" a good deer this fall!) I may eventually get the 1.4x if I feel the need to get a little extra reach but Im hoping the 400 will cover it.

Thanks!

I got the 1.4x,not for the reach but to keep the dust out lol.