100-400 IS vs 70-200 2.8 IS w/ 2x extender

I am in the market for my first L series telephoto. I am not sure if I should buy the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM Telephoto or the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto with the EF 2X II Extender which woul give me a 140-400 f/5.6. I realize that the latter option is a few more dollars, but I will get a lot more versatility. I shoot nature pics and my kids baseball games. Does anyone have a thought on this. Thanks.

Ehh I think the 2x TC makes you lose autofocus and Image quality

Welcome to the forums

You don't lose AF, but you do lose 2 stops and image quality. IMHO it's not worth it, I was very disappointed with the 70-200/2x combo. Just get a lens long enough to begin with.

I'd get the 100-400L if you need that range, the 2X does funky things to great glass like the 70-200L

The 70-200 f/2.8 is an awesome piece of glass on it's own. I would say it's a better lens than the 100-400.
But yeah, you lose image quality on a 2x TC, and AF only at f/8 and smaller I think?

If money is short I would say go 70-200 and 1.4 TC make sure a canon MKII verson TC. Its a compromise but you will still end up with resonable IQ.

And yes welcome

here is the answer

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

but I am not sure the quality of the 100-400 they tested with.

weka2000 wrote in post #2204315
If money is short I would say go 70-200 and 1.4 TC make sure a canon MKII verson TC. Its a compromise but you will still end up with resonable IQ.

And yes welcome

resonable? not at all. 1.4x+300mm is reasonable, the result is showed by one of my friends:

http://www.pbase.com …x/image/5973016​6/original

You may also check the offical MTF chart released by Canon. the MTF test result of 1.4x+300mm is even better than 300/4 alone...how amazing?

but 70-200/2.8 performs worse with 1.4x, the following is my test result

http://www.pbase.com …u/image/6933447​8/original

or you have to use those aperture smaller than f/4.

If you need out to 400 much, the 100-400. If it's just an occasional, "well, it'll be nice to have" length, get the 70-200 and TC. But don't expect really good quality out past 200.

AdamJL wrote in post #2204268
The 70-200 f/2.8 is an awesome piece of glass on it's own. I would say it's a better lens than the 100-400.
But yeah, you lose image quality on a 2x TC, and AF only at f/8 and smaller I think?

First off, with the 2x converter it would be F5.6, not F8. and also, the 70-200 and 100-400 serve different puposes entirely, so you cant really say one is better than the other.

weka2000 wrote in post #2204315
If money is short I would say go 70-200 and 1.4 TC make sure a canon MKII verson TC. Its a compromise but you will still end up with resonable IQ.

And yes welcome

This would be a reasonable option.

anoia wrote in post #2204493
resonable? not at all. 1.4x+300mm is reasonable, the result is showed by one of my friends:

http://www.pbase.com …x/image/5973016​6/original

You may also check the offical MTF chart released by Canon. the MTF test result of 1.4x+300mm is even better than 300/4 alone...how amazing?

but 70-200/2.8 performs worse with 1.4x, the following is my test result

http://www.pbase.com …u/image/6933447​8/original

or you have to use those aperture smaller than f/4.

ohh, that whole post gave me a chuckle, too bad it has little relevance to the question at hand.

Jon wrote in post #2205889
If you need out to 400 much, the 100-400. If it's just an occasional, "well, it'll be nice to have" length, get the 70-200 and TC. But don't expect really good quality out past 200.

good advice.

So basically it comes down to which you need more. the 70-200 would be better for sports. but the 2x TC just isnt going to cut it, id say if you got the 70-200 to get the 1.4x and then save up to get a longer lens at a later time. if you would like mainly better nature shots, and feel you need the 400mm, then go for the 100-400. both are great lenses, but for different purposes.

like many people have already mentioned, these are 2 different lenses and choosing between them is based on what you would like to shoot more. i will say that for wildlife, the 100-400 wipes the floor with the 70-200 just because it is better suited for it. for other things, the 100-400 might be horrible while the 70-200 is a winner. if you want 400mm and you think that you will use it a lot, go for the 100-400 and don't look back.

If you're shooting at 200-400mm often, just get the 100-400mm as you'll have better results. But if you want maximum versatility at lower cost, the 70-200mm and a 2x II TC would work very well. I use the latter combo because I have no interest in the 100-400mm zoom and I'm *very* happy with the results. The IQ is just fine. Bonus, I maintain my weathersealing - which is lacking on the 100-400mm, and I have a newer IS.

So, um, dare I ask.....does this have to be a zoom?

AeroSmith wrote in post #2206002
So, um, dare I ask.....does this have to be a zoom?

in this case i would definitly say yes. a 300/400 prime alone isnt going to do well for baseball and nature both.