100-400 vs 135L and 200L with TCs

I was playing around with my TC's today and decided to see how different configurations with the 135L and the 200L would compare with the images taken with the 100-400L at 400mm. Here's a link to the results in case anyone would like to see them.

I captured the shooting info and the auto-focus point (when available) in windows in the images. Since the shooting info will not list stacked TC's, I included all the info in the notes for each image.

http://www.pbase.com/b​ob_r/tests

Bob R

Proof (once again) how under-rated/under-appreciated/under-purchased the 200 L II USM is. It's a freaking gem of a lens.

LightRules wrote in post #5062234
Proof (once again) how under-rated/under-appreciated/under-purchased the 200 L II USM is. It's a freaking gem of a lens.

ditto what he says . and thanks again LightRules.

Bill

LightRules wrote in post #5062234
Proof (once again) how under-rated/under-appreciated/under-purchased the 200 L II USM is. It's a freaking gem of a lens.

Ditto #2

The only down side to the 200 is no IS. But it is a sharp lens.

I would like to have seen what the images would have looked like stopped down a stop.

Interesting comparison, thanks for sharing.
To me, the 100-400 looks a lot sharper with better contrast than the 200+2x.

Like above, it would be interesting to see the 200+2x @ f/5.6 for to me a more meaningful comparison.
edit: Never mind, the 200+2x has a f/5.6 as its max aperature, so the comparison is fare(same DOF, and both wide open). I like the 100-400 image a lot better.

r1ch wrote in post #5062535
The only down side to the 200 is no IS. But it is a sharp lens.

I would like to have seen what the images would have looked like stopped down a stop.

If I had stopped down, I would have exceed the f/5.6 barrier for AF on the 30D. To try to keep my ability to MF out of the equation, I had to shoot wide open.

Bob R

JC4 wrote in post #5062576
Interesting comparison, thanks for sharing.
To me, the 100-400 looks a lot sharper with better contrast than the 200+2x.

Like above, it would be interesting to see the 200+2x @ f/5.6 for to me a more meaningful comparison.

When you add the 2X, you are at f/5.6. If I had set the 200 to f/5.6, I would have reduced it to f/11 with a 2X and to f/16 with both TC's.

LightRules wrote in post #5062234
Proof (once again) how under-rated/under-appreciated/under-purchased the 200 L II USM is. It's a freaking gem of a lens.

Ditto again. This lens rocks out loud, and even with a T-Cons is faster at 300mm and equivalent at 400mm than the 100-400L.

bob_r wrote in post #5062597
When you add the 2X, you are at f/5.6. If I had set the 200 to f/5.6, I would have reduced it to f/11 with a 2X and to f/16 with both TC's.

Thanks, I knew how the Teleconverters work. I was talking absolute aperture, like the camera sees with reporting TC's(obviously, not when they are stacked). So, both the 100-400 and the 200+2xTC were at f/5.6. I stand by: liking the 100-400 image a lot better. I can only imagine how much sharper the 400 f/5.6L would have been in this same test. For me, the 200+2xTC is not a substitute for the 100-400

JC4 wrote in post #5062664
Thanks, I knew how the Teleconverters work. I was talking absolute aperture, like the camera sees with reporting TC's(obviously, not when they are stacked). So, both the 100-400 and the 200+2xTC were at f/5.6. I stand by liking the 100-400 image a lot better. I can only imagine how much sharper the 400 f/5.6L would have been in this same test.

I like the 100-400 better too, but the 200L would certainly give you usable images if you wanted to travel light.

I actually had the 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400 at the same time. There wasn't enough difference in IQ to justify giving up the zoom. I know not everyone has a sharp copy of the 100-400, but I do.

Bob R

bob_r wrote in post #5062691
I like the 100-400 better too, but the 200L would certainly give you usable images if you wanted to travel light.

True. I do the same with my 135. But, I usually stop at a 1.4x TC. I can't get myself to stop pixel peeping<G>

bob_r wrote in post #5062691
I like the 100-400 better too, but the 200L would certainly give you usable images if you wanted to travel light

None of the native 200mm lenses (200 f2.8, 70-200's) with 2xTC can match the 1-4IS at 400mm f5.6. But the 200 prime comes closest. The 135L with 2.8xTC (2x + 1.4x) isn't even in the game. TCs have a huge impact.

I actually had the 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400 at the same time. There wasn't enough difference in IQ to justify giving up the zoom. I know not everyone has a sharp copy of the 100-400, but I do

Similar story for me.

AAA

"None of the native 200mm lenses (200 f2.8, 70-200's) with 2xTC can match the 1-4IS at 400mm f5.6. But the 200 prime comes closest. The 135L with 2.8xTC (2x + 1.4x) isn't even in the game. TCs have a huge impact."

The 135 didn't seem as sharp as the 200 with just the 2x either. It really lost IQ when adding the second TC. The IQ of the 200 degraded with the addition of each TC, but not as bad as the 135. I agree that the 200 definitely handles the TC's better than the rest. I had a 70-200 f/2.8 too and it didn't handle the TC's as good as the 200 either.

Looks like you may have run this test yourself. I've looked at some of your tests (and thanks for supplying them), but didn't recall seeing these.

Bob R

bob_r wrote in post #5063193
"None of the native 200mm lenses (200 f2.8, 70-200's) with 2xTC can match the 1-4IS at 400mm f5.6. But the 200 prime comes closest. The 135L with 2.8xTC (2x + 1.4x) isn't even in the game. TCs have a huge impact."

The 135 didn't seem as sharp as the 200 with just the 2x either. It really lost IQ when adding the second TC. The IQ of the 200 degraded with the addition of each TC, but not as bad as the 135. I agree that the 200 definitely handles the TC's better than the rest. I had a 70-200 f/2.8 too and it didn't handle the TC's as good as the 200 either.

Looks like you may have run this test yourself. I've looked at some of your tests (and thanks for supplying them), but didn't recall seeing these.

My site probably has only 1/10th of everything I actually have on "file". But in short, the 200L takes a TC better than any of the other lenses mentioned. Optically it's right there with the stellar 70-200 f4 IS (but gets you a sharp f2.8 to boot). Colors are superlative too. Love the lens.