70-300 IS vs. 70-200 2.8 L IS w/1.4X TC

Does the drop in IQ with the 1.4XTC make the 70-200 2.8 IS worse than the 70-300 IS? That's the bottom line of my question. If you feel like knowing more about the background to my query do read on. Otherwise, thanks for your answers!

I currently have the 70-300 IS and have had a good use from it, but I am beginning to reach two limitations with this lens: it is too slow indoors (e.g. concerts) and not as long as I'd like it to be for wild life.To address the second problem, I'll get a 100-400L, eventually (I have been holding off so far thinking (wishing?) that a MkII of this lens may be released in not too long). To address the issue of speed, I am now considering getting the 70-200 2.8 IS. From what I have seen and read, I think this will do it very nicely. So I thought that I could perhaps sell my 70-300 and get a 1.4XTC to compensate for the lack of reach while I make up my mind on whether to continue waiting for the new 100-400L or get the current version. Would I regret replacing the 70-300 with the 70-200 plus 1.4XTC?

Disclaimers: I have done a search using "70-200 2.8 extender" and did not find answers to this question. I have also looked at the test shots from The Digital Picture but feel I need some informed feedback.

cfibanez wrote in post #7975704
Does the drop in IQ with the 1.4XTC make the 70-200 2.8 IS worse than the 70-300 IS?

At the same real apertures the 70-200 is probably sharper. It will become a 280 F/4 at the long end, stopping it down to F/5.6 wil make it a sharp lens.

That's the bottom line of my question. If you feel like knowing more about the background to my query do read on. Otherwise, thanks for your answers!

I currently have the 70-300 IS and have had a good use from it, but I am beginning to reach two limitations with this lens: it is too slow indoors (e.g. concerts) and not as long as I'd like it to be for wild life. I've considered remedying the second problem by getting the 100-400L, but I have been holding off thinking (wishing?) that a MkII of this lens may be released in not too long . To address the first limitation, though, I am now considering getting the 70-200 2.8 IS. For concerts, I personally use primes rather than zooms, because primes are generally faster at better IQ than zooms, and IMO you need all the light you can get. Sure, the 70-200 F/2.8 IS is a great lens, but I'd rather have a 135L in that case (preferably a 200 F/2L, but that is way beyond my wildest dreams right now ). I find I can never have enough light.

From what I have seen and read, I think this will do it very nicely. So I thought that I could perhaps sell my 70-300 and get a 1.4XTC to compensate for the lack of reach while I make up my mind on whether to continue waiting for the new 100-400L or get the current version. Does this make sense, or do you think that I would regret replacing the 70-300 with the 70-200 plus 1.4XTC?
I don't think so. I use the 70-200 F/4L IS with extender, making it a 98-280 F/5.6, wide open and the results are actually very good. To get to the same aperture with the F/2.8 you have to stop down, and that should make it as good.
[QUOTE]Disclaimers: I have done a search using "70-200 2.8 extender" and did not find answers to this question. I have also looked at the test shots from The Digital Picture but feel I need some more feeback.
Regarding the replacement of the 100-400L, I don't think that is in the cards right now. The 24-70 F/2.8 with (the new) SWC and the 70-200 F/2.8 with SWC I'd expect sooner, as these are bread and butter lenses to many people. The price of the 100-400L has gone up by 15 % recently, over here, so I doubt that is going to be replaced very soon. I also think Canon has made some tacit changes to this lens, as the zoom friction ring only turns about a quarter circle since a few years (from about 3/4), and it seems the IS is a little better than two stops too. Also, people do report that the 100-400Ls of the last years are excellent at 400 mm, something that seems to have been a complaint several years back.

In short, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a new edition of the 100-400L, and especially not because it is likely going to be about 40 % more expensive than its predecessor when a new version arrives, and (much) more if it is faster, say F/4.5 or F/5.0 at the long end.

Kind regards, Wim

Agree with Wim,.. if you need longer, a shorter lens with t-con is not the answer.

SWC? whats that?

nureality wrote in post #7975879
SWC? whats that?

That's the new Sub Wavelength Coating applied to the 24L Mk II, and the new TS-Es.

I would think those two lenses are the first ones on Canon's list to be improved, and a slight redesign plus SWC would do the trick, I would think .

OT: I think it is really funny how marketing people come up with terms like "Nano-coating" and "Sub Wavelength Coating", etc. Lens coatings are by definition sub-wavelength (= nano), otherwise they wouldn't work like they do .

Kind regards, Wim

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 200mm w/1.4x TC (280mm) it will be sharper than the 70-300IS @ 280mm. It will definitely be sharper without the TC. I don't think you should consider the upgrade on the merit of reach alone, even though the 70-300IS isn't all that sharp past about 220mm. Get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS if you find yourself using 70-200 range a lot (you probably do, we all do).

I use a 70-200 f/4L IS USM, and even when I use my cheapo 2x TC (which makes AF a bit hit-or-miss because it can get stuck hunting), the images are better than I would get from from the 70-300's. The 70-200L's are really in a different class, and once you use them you won't want to use any other zoom in the range of 70-200mm.

As for the 100-400L, its a great lens, and will do the job you want for reach. But as wimg said, the speed will be lacking. For concert photography, if you don't have extremely fast glass (f/2.0 or wider) you're just not going to get the results you want. Theres a reason that photogs with press clearance shoot from the photog pit or from the wings, because they can use shorter lenses which are fast enough. You don't often see a credentialed photographer shooting from the audience, because he's just not gonna have enough light to get the shots he needs. I've seen a lot of concert shooters depend on 85/1.8's (and 85/1.2's and 85/1.4's), 135 f2's (and back in the day 135 f/2.5's), and 100 f/2's, and some even 50/1.4's and 50/1.2's. Speed is what you need.

wimg wrote in post #7975854
Regarding the replacement of the 100-400L, I don't think that is in the cards right now. The 24-70 F/2.8 with (the new) SWC and the 70-200 F/2.8 with SWC I'd expect sooner, as these are bread and butter lenses to many people. The price of the 100-400L has gone up by 15 % recently, over here, so I doubt that is going to be replaced very soon. I also think Canon has made some tacit changes to this lens, as the zoom friction ring only turns about a quarter circle since a few years (from about 3/4), and it seems the IS is a little better than two stops too. Also, people do report that the 100-400Ls of the last years are excellent at 400 mm, something that seems to have been a complaint several years back.

In short, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a new edition of the 100-400L, and especially not because it is likely going to be about 40 % more expensive than its predecessor when a new version arrives, and (much) more if it is faster, say F/4.5 or F/5.0 at the long end.
Kind regards, Wim

More money and more bulk. If they make that beast faster, it will have to become larger as well.

Your kidding 70-300 IS vs 70-200+1.4x ?

he clearly is not kidding. He is asking for advice.

.....and the Winner is....Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS +1.4x $1599.00 at B+H in stock now....Rich

Does anyone have any actual samples to post? I know my 70-200 suffers a fair bit with the 1.4x... the 70-300 would have to be really bad to be worse off.

(I've never used a non-L lens except the 85/1.8 so I don't actually know how Canon's other lenses perform.)

wimg wrote in post #7975854
At the same real apertures the 70-200 is probably sharper. It will become a 280 F/4 at the long end, stopping it down to F/5.6 wil make it a sharp lens. For concerts, I personally use primes rather than zooms, because primes are generally faster at better IQ than zooms, and IMO you need all the light you can get. Sure, the 70-200 F/2.8 IS is a great lens, but I'd rather have a 135L in that case (preferably a 200 F/2L, but that is way beyond my wildest dreams right now ). I find I can never have enough light.

Thank you for this. I agree, I find myself using the 100 2.8 macro more and more in concerts. At ISO1600, I can go down to 1/100 and get good results wide open. A 70-200 would be a lot more versatile, though, and I've seen many pros using it at several events. It would not only be concerts for me though. Freezing fast moving creatures in poor light conditions (e.g. thick rain forest) is another situation in which my 70-300 has left me wanting.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #7975876
Agree with Wim,.. if you need longer, a shorter lens with t-con is not the answer.

Yes, but that was not my point. I'll get the 100-400L in due time. My question was simply about the IQ comparison between 70-200+TC vs. 70-300 in the 100-300 range. Sorry for the confusion.

nureality wrote in post #7975914
The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 200mm w/1.4x TC (280mm) it will be sharper than the 70-300IS @ 280mm. It will definitely be sharper without the TC. I don't think you should consider the upgrade on the merit of reach alone, even though the 70-300IS isn't all that sharp past about 220mm. Get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS if you find yourself using 70-200 range a lot (you probably do, we all do).

Thanks for this.

Rich S wrote in post #7977907
.....and the Winner is....Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS +1.4x $1599.00 at B+H in stock now....Rich

Thank you Rich. Are you saying this from experience, hearsay or plain prejudice? That's how I viewed this at first myself, until I began looking around the forum and seeing what people wrote about the use of TCs. See next.

Rafal_BC wrote in post #7977927
Does anyone have any actual samples to post? I know my 70-200 suffers a fair bit with the 1.4x... the 70-300 would have to be really bad to be worse off. (I've never used a non-L lens except the 85/1.8 so I don't actually know how Canon's other lenses perform.)

Thank you. This is what I have read from other posters, and the reaons behind my enquire in the first place. Aside from the cost, the 70-200 2.8 is bulky and heavy, and I'd hate to have to lug it around if the IQ with 1.4XTC was not better than my 70-300.

Get a 200mm f/2.8L and use the 1.4x. With the 70-300 you have a f/5.6 at 300mm. A 100-400mm would give better pics and be more versatile still at f/5.6 and IS. It weighs less then a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a tc 3.6lbs and 100-400 is only 3lbs

Rich S wrote in post #7978166
Get a 200mm f/2.8L and use the 1.4x. With the 70-300 you have a f/5.6 at 300mm. A 100-400mm would give better pics and be more versatile still at f/5.6 and IS. It weighs less then a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a tc 3.6lbs and 100-400 is only 3lbs

Thank you Rich. Good suggestion. Without IS, however, the 200mm f/2.8L does not look as appetizing to me. Now, it'd be nice to hear some answers to my original question.

I understand what you want to do, but I guess a 2 lens combo would be best option to solving low light and long FL demands. 85/1.8 + 100-400 would roughly be the same príce. You can get a 135L if that's a better FL for you, but at a higher price.
Apologies if this does not actually answer your original question.