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

Hmmmm, I only ask because I've found both of the 300s to be so useful for nature photography and field sports photography.

What Billy said... I've shot softball from right next to the plate with a 200mm and it works for those near you - but you'll want 300-400mm for players in the field, etc. Especially if you're in the stands. Nature even more so.

Having great copies of both lenses, there is no comparison at 400mm f5.6. None. But if you're not comparing the 7-2 + 2x to anything, it can deliver "acceptable" results, depending on what "acceptable" is to you.

A lot of people find that they don't use their 70-200mm lens much, once they get a 100-400L. I haven't been shooting a whole lot I got my 100-400L, but I can see why they feel that way. My 70-200 used to spend alot of time on my camera, but now the 100-400 stays there. This would be a great lens for kid's sports. I'm taking mine out this weekend for my daughter's soccer games where used to use the 70-200. I think the IS is going to help alot, and I'll have the ability to get tight shots on facial expressions, kicks, etc.

Well, I got my 70-200 after the 100-400, and I use 'em both, depending on what I'm doing.

I have both, both great lenses. The 70-200 is a little more versatile because you can use it indoors at 2.8. If I had to chose I would take my 100-400. I love the extra reach for outdoors sports, nature and Zoo shots.

This is amazing that you can get this much help such a short time. After reading everyones posts I think I will get more use out of the 70-200. If I really need the extra length I will save up for the 100-400 or buy a fixed 400. I should find another addiction as it would be cheaper. Thanks again everyone.

I have both, and the 2X teleconverter. A year or so ago, I compared the 70-200 with the 2X II vs the 100-400 at 400 mm. No comparison - the 2X doesn't work quite so well with the zoom as it does with the big primes. The 100-400 produces a sharper image than the 70-200 plus 2X especially between f/5.6 and f/8 where it's most likely to be used in a sporting event.

Now, as stated by others, both are very good lenses, with the 70-200 being an exceptional lens in its range. It's just that the 2X takes a bit away from the zoom, that's all.

An alternative is to get the 70-200 and 1.4X and save up for the 300/4 IS or 400/5.6 at a later date (my preference is the 300/4 as it has a great close-focus capability, IS, and works well with the 1.4X).

The 70-200 2.8 IS works well with the 1.4XTC. So you have a better 70-280mm lens than the 100-400.

I would forget the 2X option,I found it crap on my 70-200f2.8Lis not even near the IQ of my 100-400L.

Umm I just got a 2x EF II for my 70-200 f/2.8 IS and it seems to "hunt" while trying to focus. But then I was trying it indoors and at 8-10 ft distance.

I understand that there are compromises in IQ, but does adding a 2x or 1.4x also compromise on focussing speed? Focussing speed is important to me.

gjman wrote in post #2274693
Umm I just got a 2x EF II for my 70-200 f/2.8 IS and it seems to "hunt" while trying to focus. But then I was trying it indoors and at 8-10 ft distance.

I understand that there are compromises in IQ, but does adding a 2x or 1.4x also compromise on focussing speed? Focussing speed is important to me.

They do affect focusing speed - also depends somewhat on the body and lens they're attached to. Indoors in poor lighting won't be as good as outdoors in daylight.

gjman wrote in post #2274693
Umm I just got a 2x EF II for my 70-200 f/2.8 IS and it seems to "hunt" while trying to focus. But then I was trying it indoors and at 8-10 ft distance.

what do your shots look like outside of your home?

Can you shoot "a duck" for us? It could help those that are contemplating adding a 2x to thier collection but still aren't sure.

regards,
-D

Naah its only good for big game...ducks are too small.

If you are contemplating then just go to your local camera store and get it. But just make sure that you understand their return policy (mine is 15 days) and you make sure you keep every piece of plastic/bubble wrap that it comes with. Your shooting style and expectations are unique to you and wont be similar to mine or anyone else.

I find the 70-200 + 2x TC too unwieldy for handheld applications on a 20D with BG-E2. It WILL be used only on the tripod or on the monopod. If its on the tripod its usually for subjects that I have "time" with (landscapes) so I dont care how long it takes to focus. On the monopod it would be for a different use where focussing speeds is important (like sports and airshows)

Also on a decent tripod (with shutter release) every lens will perform at its best so my preliminary analysis of IQ seems to show very little difference with or without TC. The monopod/handheld is a different kettle of fish and it tooooooooooooootally depends on you.

I would go with the 70-200. This is one of my most used lenses, and I absolutely love it! The 100-400 has a bit more heft, and is a push/pull. I don't know how much experience you have, but they're a little tricky at first if you haven't used them before. The 2.8 will give you much better background blur, and is far better at stopping action in low light. I use a 5D and a 20D. My stepdaughter is on her highschool drill team, and the 70-200 range is perfect on the football field, whether I'm close or in the front of the stands. This lens is also EXCELLENT for portraits and candids. On my 5, I can sometimes use it indoors. The extra distance is nice to have, but the sharpness and quality of the 70-200 cannot be beat. If your ONLY use for this lens is your son's games, the 100-400 might not be a bad idea, but if you going to use it for portraits, vacation photos, family snapshots etc.. I'd definitely suggest the 70-200. You will not regret it! What camera will you be using?