Buy 100-400L OR buy 2x to add to my 70-200L 2.8 IS?

How about some straight up advice...

I already have the 70-200L 2.8 IS, and would love to have the focal length the 100-400L offers, but would like to know what you guys think about holding off on that lens and purchasing the 2x for my ALREADY PAID FOR 70-200L

What do yall think?

I've heard the horror stories about the lack of AF once you add the 2x but i've also read on here that AF DOES WORK, just slower than normal...

I also hate to invest the $ in a new lens if i could just purchase the 2x and have close to the same results

Thanks in advance for your help!

I guess I should add that I mainly shoot sports, agri-related shots, wildlife, people, and kids, but none of those are profittable, at least for now... but that's soon to change, hopefully

how often are you at 400mm?
edit** pick up a used 2x and see if its to your liking. my 1.4 is always on my 70-200

A 1.4x works very well on the 70-200, but I wasn't happy using a 2x. AF got real slow, and IQ suffered unless stopped down. My 100-400 is sharper than my 70-200 w/ either converter, and AF is faster than the 7-2 w/ a 2x.

I'd suggest getting a 1.4x TC, and see if you still want 25% more reach. If so, save for the 100-400. I'd skip the 2x TC.

JC4 wrote in post #5529473
A 1.4x works very well on the 70-200, but I wasn't happy using a 2x. AF got real slow, and IQ suffered unless stopped down. My 100-400 is sharper than my 70-200 w/ either converter, and AF is faster than the 7-2 w/ a 2x.

I'd suggest getting a 1.4x TC, and see if you still want 25% more reach. If so, save for the 100-400. I'd skip the 2x TC.

Thanks so much for the advice... I've heard a number of people say the 1.4x offers much better results than that of the 2x

You folks are great!

I'd like to save my $ and get the 100-400, and maybe the perfect opportunity would be during the rebate season--- then again, i'm also interested in the 40D, so i thought if i could save by getting the 2x or 1.4x i'd be able to get the 40D

HoRnYTuRbO wrote in post #5529433
how often are you at 400mm?
edit** pick up a used 2x and see if its to your liking. my 1.4 is always on my 70-200

Well, i just feel like if i had the option of 400, i'd be there a LOT, especially with sports and wildlife shots.

hi all

how does the advice change if i am goign to buy a 70-200 IS L f/4 (as opposed to the 2.8)??

I bought the 2x originally to use with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. In the end I picked up a 100-400mm as well. What's good about the former is that you have a weathersealed package and 400mm for a lot less money. What's good about the latter is that you really do have much better quality at 400mm. I really wanted something at 400mm as I wanted the reach - and nothing does it better than a lens natively at 400mm.

That's not to say that the 2x is horrible (or even bad) on a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. I got pretty good, usable shots from the combo with which I was happy. Not stellar, mind you - but really pretty good.

If you plan to shoot at 400mm a lot, consider the 100-400mm or the 400mm f/5.6. The downsides being that the former isn't weathersealed (if it matters) and has an older IS system. The latter doesn't have IS at all.

booboos wrote in post #5530373
hi all

how does the advice change if i am goign to buy a 70-200 IS L f/4 (as opposed to the 2.8??

You will lose autofocus with the 2x on a f/4 lens unless you've got a 1D series.

1.4x on a f/4 will retain autofocus.

why not just get the 400 5.6? This lens is far sharper than the 100-400 and I actually posted a link to another thread where the 400 5.6 out performed the 400 DO

added...

Here's the link to the test results...

http://www.naturescape​s.net …iewtopic.php?f=​1&t=127089

The 400mm makes a great combo with a 70-200mm. The 400mm will also take better photo's in my experience than the 1-4, with or without TCons.

I originally added 2xTC to my 70-200 f/2.8 and eventually ended up with the 100-400. Now my 2xTC is buried somewhere in my Pelican case with hardly any action. The IQ loss from the combo use is just not acceptable to me. My advice is to skip 2xTC and go for either 100-400 or 400.

The only reason why I haven't sold the 2xTC is because it'd be useful when I add the 500mm prime, as TC's work better with primes than zooms from what I hear....

Gliderparentntn wrote in post #5530611
why not just get the 400 5.6? This lens is far sharper than the 100-400

There are a few reasons I went with the 1-4 vs the 400. IS, Versatility and Size. I wouldn't have a lens this long without IS. While mine spends most of its time at 400mm, I still like the range. The 1-4 is much shorter closed down, and easier to carry in a bag, especially attached to a camera. Everyones needs are different.

I'm sure the 400 is sharper, but not sure I'd say FAR sharper. At least not from all the tests/comparisons/deba​tes that are constantly posted about these two lenses. No first hand experience.

JC4 wrote in post #5530757
There are a few reasons I went with the 1-4 vs the 400. IS, Versatility and Size. I wouldn't have a lens this long without IS. While mine spends most of its time at 400mm, I still like the range. The 1-4 is much shorter closed down, and easier to carry in a bag, especially attached to a camera. Everyones needs are different.

I'm sure the 400 is sharper, but not sure I'd say FAR sharper. At least not from all the tests/comparisons/deba​tes that are constantly posted about these two lenses. No first hand experience.

My exact sentiment. I have no doubt that 400 is slightly better than 100-400 in terms of IQ, but my need for versatility far outweighs the slight adv in IQ. But of course, many others would say exactly the opposite.

I have the 70-200 Lense which I love, plus the extra 1.4 extender which is good for more distance.
I was greedy and purchased the 100 -400 f4 but since using have got more dust on my camera because of the movement of the lense.

I would recommend the 100-400 prime lense which friends of our photo club have.

Does anybody else have this dust problem?