Canon EF 100-400 with APS-C?

Hi, I'm currently debating whether to go with EF100-400 or 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 TC. They will be used with my 50D.
Would you current owners of the above two lenses provide some picture samples? It'll be great to have 100% crop as well. I'm trying to compare the IQ on the long end between the two.
I understand these are two different lenses and I'm leaning toward 100-400 for the zoom range but am not sure how it performs on a APS-C body.
Any comments are appreciated.

You can fine 100-400 pics here: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=373778

Not sure where to find pics of 70-200 with a TC.

I have both lenses, but not the 1.4TC. I love both but for different reasons. The 100-400 is a great lens for long range. If you are birding the APS-C adds that much more reach to the zoom. If you are curious about the pictures look to the lens archives for samples.

100-400 -https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=373778
70-200IS2.8 -https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=138395

The 70-200 2.8L will produce sharper photos. The 100-400 was never good for me. Got rid it shortly after I bought it. Good? Yes. Great? Nope.

Thanks for chime in.
The lens's main use will be wildlife and some birds. That's why I am leaning toward 1-4.

I have the 70-200 and it is very versatile and a great lens. The 100-400 that I have is soon to go. It has been OK, but I think I can get better. I now have a 300 f4 and 1.4 TC - When I get out, that should be a great combo. Better than the 100-400 I reckon.

Ok, I'm going to wait for the 70-200 IS markII review before I decide. With 50D and 1.4 tc, it'll be about 400mm and I hope that's long enough for the shots that I'm planning on doing.

7D + 100-400, hand held at 400mm, 1/250, f/7.1, 800 ISO, fill flash. Processed in DPP with Standard picture style and sharpening = 5. No other edits. You may note that the DOF is incredibly thin at this level of magnification.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

I to, a couple of years back was in this situation. I ended up down the 10-400 route and never regretted it on a 30D. Alot of people knock the 100-400, mainly I think because they are unfamiliar with push/pull zoom. I think for birding or action, this lens is great! I never EVER had an unreliable moment with my lens.

People need to learn equipments limits, and use it where it should be used and not expect that a lens like thge 100-400 can work in low light because it wont.

Why do you need to pixel peep a lens like this? I mean we have programs like aperture or photoshop, if we are shooting RAW, basically anything can be done. I dont understand it...

I use a 100-400 with a Kenko PRO300 DG 1.4x converter on a 30D. While it may not offer the crispness of a prime lens, it is a pretty good lens and a pretty good combination. I get the same quality as I see from my 70-200 f/2.8L.

I hired a 500 f/4 last year and purposely shot with both lenses to compare them. Quality wise I cannot split them and the 100-400 plus converter is a much easier lens to use than the unwieldy 500, as well as being a LOT cheaper.

I don't handhold it, it's always on a monopod.

I am absolutely happy with the 100-400 on my 40D. It's very sharp wide open, IS works very well, and it didn't cost me $5000. The get an improvement over the 100-400, I would have to spend $5000 or more (on those silly superteles ) So if your budget tops out at ~$1500, the 100-400L is a no brainer.

Google some reviews of the 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x compared with the 100-400L. The 100-400L is a MUCH better choice to get to 400mm.

Disclaimer - Yeah, I know the 300/4 and 400/5.6 primes are a bit better, especially in autofocus speed, but I've never been like "dang, this 100-400 is focusing too slow for me..."

I have a 100-400 and a 70-200 f2.8 IS. I bought the latter first to go with a 350D,
along with the 2x and 1.4x extenders. I thought this would be a great combo
for birds and portraits. It was good for neither. Have since got the 100-400 and
latterly a 50D to go with it for birds. I love that combo. Also got a 5D2, and now
the 70-200 is actually useful.

It ultimately depends on what your standards are. When I compared my 100-400 + 1.4x shots with my friend's 300 f4L + 1.4x I instantly knew that lens was going up for sale. The 300 combo is much sharper and faster. For birds you'll never have enough reach. Even with the 500 it seems like you still need more, especially for small birds.

Heres an example of what the 100-400 with converter is capable of on the 30D. One is with a 500 f/4L IS and another with the 100-400L IS with 1.4x converter, both on monopods. I would certainly be unable to tell which was which if I did not know.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Here are a couple of small birds, shot today with my 7D and 100-400. Uncropped, no edits. I agree, a 500mm prime would be nice, but a trifle spendy for my tastes. Maybe one day

Incidentally, take a look at the DOF on the second shot. Viewed at 100% the DOF is no wider than a grain of feed. If you think you may have a "soft" 100-400 you need to be absolutely certain that your problem is not misfocus or movement of subject/tog between focusing and releasing the shutter. Also, don't be too quick to dismiss shake/blur as a potential problem. These were shot from a tripod and the difference between these and yesterday's handheld efforts, in terms of keeper rate, is clear.

For anyone interested in the 7D, the first shot is at 800 ISO, the second at 1600.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.