Would you take: 100-400L F4 + 70-200L F4 IS or 70-200L II + TC 2X II

Hi my name's Andrew. I have 5d mark II kit lens 24-105L and 35L and 70-200L F4 IS.
Sorry if this question come up too often.
I barely use my 35L nowadays, I use my 70-200L F4 IS and 24-105L more often.
I was looking at the 100-400L on youtube and afew birds forums they seem to love the beast... I just wondering maybe I should sell my 35L and 70-200L F4 IS and buy the 70-200L II (used one $1900 though) and tc 2x later. I just missed out one of the local listing 100-400L the guy want it for $1200.

I am not really sure what to do!

Only thing I need to see: 70-200L II + tc 2x photos, compare to the 100-400L's photos, I hope owners of 70-200L II charming and give me some example.

Thanks

I use the 70-200II + 2xIII combo, but I only do it for fun, so nothing serious.

Here's some samples -

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kin2son/8710521​908/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kin2son/8684486​927/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kin2son/8519867​569/

I would say if you have the 70-200 already, then pick up a 400mm 5.6L. I just picked up a 100-400 myself, and it never seems to leave the 400mm side. I'm giving some thought to switching to the prime.

I will take first punch. I would take the 70-200L II + tc 2x but mark/version just because you already have the kit len (24-105L).

Cheers

70-200 II baked=awesome, 70-200 II + 1.4x=still pretty awesome(can hardly tell the difference, the hit in IQ/AF is quite miner), 70-200 II + 2x=still pretty good but much better options if you plan on using it like this a lot, fine for I need more reach for this shot(hit on IQ/AF is noticable).

I've found that using my 2x on the 70-200 II in good light gets pretty good results, in low light and shadows(even with low ISO) the dark areas look grainy(NR in post can clean it up but will cost you some sharpness which is already a bit softer from the TC). Although the 70-200 II does take hit on IQ/AF with the 2x it actually doesn't seem to be really any worse than my 50-500(100-400 being the a step better for super zooms that reach 400mm it would be more noticeable).

If all you care about getting from shots at 400mm is good enough then the 2x is a good way to get it, but if you want better not so much. If you can swing adding a 400 f5.6 and keep the 70-200 f4(possibly add a 1.4x later) would be a pretty nice kit.

The 2x TCs really only work well on the big primes. I don't even sweat putting it on my 300 f2.8, it still takes hit but can handle BIF with ease.

I would personally take 70-200 f4 IS + 100-400.

The 70-200 2.8 is much too heavy and bulky for me to want to carry it around every time I want more than 100mm.

Sirrith wrote in post #16019600
I would personally take 70-200 f4 IS + 100-400.

Yup, that's my choice also.

Sirrith wrote in post #16019600
I would personally take 70-200 f4 IS + 100-400.

The 70-200 2.8 is much too heavy and bulky for me to want to carry it around every time I want more than 100mm.

This!

I have a 70-200 2.8 and a 100-400L. Nice enough, but the 100-400 is at or near 400 most of the time. I think the 70-200 2.8 and 400 5.6 is a valid setup, too. Leave the 2X TC out of the equation, it gives you 140mm f/5.6, while you have it bolted to a lens that will do 140mm at f/2.8. At the other end, 400mm f/5.6, do you think that setup matches the 400mm f/5.6L lens for IQ or focus speed? I do not.

Love the 100-400mm Zoom, but would also consider adding 1.4X tc to your 70-200mmm and the 400mm Prime.

The 1.4X tc will work with both lenses, much better than a 2Xtc will work with anything.

Sirrith wrote in post #16019600
I would personally take 70-200 f4 IS + 100-400.

The 70-200 2.8 is much too heavy and bulky for me to want to carry it around every time I want more than 100mm.

I agree. In fact, I own both those lenses. The 100-400L is for wildlife-focused excursions, and the 70-200 f/4 IS is for when I want to travel lighter or need a constant maximum aperture. The 70-200 f/2.8 would defeat one of my main reasons for owning the f/4 version -- it's size and weight. I also have a Kenko 1.4x TC for the 70-200 just in case I need a little extra reach when traveling lighter, although it rarely gets used anymore.

For those advocating adding the 400mm f/5.6 prime, the downside is that it may require bringing along both that lens and the 70-200, depending on the subjects to be photographed. I shoot more than just birds with the 100-400L. I want to carry only one telephoto at a time, so the versatility of the 100-400 zoom is very important in my case.

Thanks guy, I really appreciated, How good are the pic at 400mm say 70-200L II + TC 2X III compare to the 400mm f5.6 stand alone? Isn't bokeh on 70-200L II +tc 2x III a lot better than 400mm?

I keep having dream about sigma 50-500 or 150-500mm roughly the same price, Can I trust sigma?

Thank again

blackwind wrote in post #16022598
Thanks guy, I really appreciated, How good are the pic at 400mm say 70-200L II + TC 2X III compare to the 400mm f5.6 stand alone? Isn't bokeh on 70-200L II +tc 2x III a lot better than 400mm?

I keep having dream about sigma 50-500 or 150-500mm roughly the same price, Can I trust sigma?

Thank again

400 5.6 is definitely sharper @ f5.6, however the biggest difference I'd say is the AF speed.

Bokeh will be the same, 400mm is 400mm.

The sigma sucks compared to the 400 5.6, but sure you gain 100mm...

I have almost the whole range of L Lenses and the 400 f/5.6 is by miles the best hand held BIF lens in the world, if you have a 5DMKIII + 1.2.1. Firmware, add the 1.4X Converter and it AFs very fast at f/8. It is also a cheap lens with incredible sharpness and blindingly fast AF. I have the 300 f/2.8 II LIS/ 500 f/4 L II IS all of which I can hand hold but none moves so swiftly as the 400 when tracking fast BIFs.

70-200 + 1.4 tc for now and later get the 100-400 when you realize they are different lenses and you want more reach