100-400 or 70-200 with x2 extender

I have a 100-400 but at times wish it had a wider aperature and at times find the 100 a bit long.

As an alternative I am considering selling it and buying either 70-200 is or without ( funds dictating ) and a x2 extender. With the extender I will have a very similar range to the 100-400 and retain the auto focus. The big advantage is without the extender I have the 2.8 and arguably better image quality. The downside would be the price.

Has anyone here had the same thoughts??

Thanks

Adrian

this has been beating to death, just do a search of the forum and you will find all your info.

Dave

Thanks but the search facility is not the best and I did have a look before the post

Muskydave22 wrote in post #9005134
this has been beating to death, just do a search of the forum and you will find all your info.

Dave

You know one of POTN rules is not to say that.

I think image quality would suck with the 70-200 + 2x TC when compared to the 100-400, all other things being equal.

I know of the two teleconverters the 1.4 is the one to go for but I saw someone do a review on a one website with this combination and rated it hence me looking into it.

ConDigital wrote in post #9006889
You know one of POTN rules is not to say that.

Do I get a slap on the wrist

What do you usually shoot?

A bit of everything which does not help to narrow down the choice. I like wildlife including birds, motorsport and airshows. I don't do very much in the way of people/weddings but this is an area I want to get into. For any indoor shooting the 2.8 will come in handy. I have also been out taking pictures of deer rutting and in the woods again the 2.8 would have been very useful as 200 would have been long enough.

However for airshows I need the 400 and am hoping the 70-200 with the extender will be a similar class as the 100-400.

Thanks

The 100-400 is a much better option, if you want finely detailed images the 70-200 w/ a 2x is not in the same league.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 will perform rather well w/ the 1.4x but the 100-400mm will still out resolve it with better detail and less chromatic aberration.

The 2x will really only work well on the super-telephoto primes which it was designed to work with, zoom lenses like the 70-200mm's just don't work that well with it.

I have seen people manage decent images out of the 70-200/2.8 + 2X...

However I never could get consistently decent results with the combo myself and will no longer use that particular combo. I will use 1.4X on the lens, and I'll certainly use both teleconverters on various primes, as needed (135/2, 300/4, 300/2.8 and 500/4).

2X will always cost you two full stops of light and more IQ than the 1.4X (which costs one stop of light).

The Canon 2X, in particular, tends to render a warmer image than the various lenses do without it. However, that's easily corrected in post-processing.

I think you are better served continuing to use your 100-400... But that's just my opinon.

I had a 2X converter. The ONLY lens I could be satisfied with it was the 300 2.8 IS.

Some have less expectations.

ConDigital wrote in post #9006889
You know one of POTN rules is not to say that.

What? Saying "beating to death," instead of "beaten to death"?

If you sell the 100-400 and buy 70-200 + x2 extender, you'll end up buying the 100-400 eventually and selling the x2 extender. You'll eventually end up with 70-200 and 100-400. I have the x2 extender which is an excellent paper weight....

adrian5127 wrote in post #9007772
A bit of everything which does not help to narrow down the choice. I like wildlife including birds, motorsport and airshows. I don't do very much in the way of people/weddings but this is an area I want to get into. For any indoor shooting the 2.8 will come in handy. I have also been out taking pictures of deer rutting and in the woods again the 2.8 would have been very useful as 200 would have been long enough.

However for airshows I need the 400 and am hoping the 70-200 with the extender will be a similar class as the 100-400.

Thanks

it won't even be close. at 400mm the 100-400L is hard to beat.

ed rader

SYS wrote in post #9010078
If you sell the 100-400 and buy 70-200 + x2 extender, you'll end up buying the 100-400 eventually and selling the x2 extender. You'll eventually end up with 70-200 and 100-400. I have the x2 extender which is an excellent paper weight....

yeah really for what the OP wants to do you need both lenses. i have both (f4 IS).

ed rader