70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2X TCII vs 100-400 Wide Open

I had discussed doing this comparo with a couple of other members a few days ago. I enjoy the discussion these threads typically lead to. This is a quick and dirty comparison. A much better controlled comparison is at the digital picture I believe...

I had to do the test outside to get enough light to get respectable speeds. The problem was it was extremely windy and all my focus targets kept blowing around. I finally had to settle on a Allstate folder wedged in the fence (4-5m) and a shot of the neighbors house (~50m). The folder shots were taken from a tripod and the house shots were handheld with IS. I noticed the 100-400 shots were over a stop underexposed but the house shots were ok?? I shot all of them wide open with both lenses (f/5.6) and iso 100. Speeds on the handheld shots were fast enough to preclude camera movement as a problem.
Here are the native test shots. Crops to follow.

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

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

Crops 70-200+2X
Then 100-400

EDIT: Fix exposure 70-200

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

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

Crops house
70-200
then 100-400

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

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

Looks to me the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK II +1.4 TC wins out in both scenerios.

cool,

for close to 3,000 you can do what the 100-400 does for 1600$. I am truly impressed

Seriously though, the beef I always had was focus speed with that 2X.

Jdmhood wrote in post #10135080
Looks to me the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK II +1.4 TC wins out in both scenerios.

Or neither scenario?

mikeassk wrote in post #10135081
cool,

for close to 3,000 you can do what the 100-400 does for 1600$. I am truly impressed.

For someone that already owns a 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS MK II, they can get the extra reach for the cost of a single 1.4x TC without sacrificing IQ when compared to a 100-400L. What's not to like?

I don't think the OP intends to have those compared in your sense.

WoW thanks for these test shots! Out of interest from your using of both lenses, when the 2*TC is attached to the 70-200mm how did you find the other aspects of the lens, those of AF speed and IS performance? I ask because on an image quality side the 70-200mm is standing up brilliantly against the 100-400mm that you have tested it against.

Edit actually if I might be so bold as to ask for one more thing would it be possible to see the results of this test using your 350D camera body? I know from tests and my own experience that teleconverter performance pushes both the lens and the camera body and that higher performance bodies can pull more quality out of the setup than lower grade ones - so for me on a 400D and not able to upgrade that for a long while I would b greatfull to see the combos performance on a similar grade of body (and sadly all the pro testing sites stick to 1D, 7D and 5D line camera bodies for their tests).

Overread wrote in post #10135110
WoW thanks for these test shots! Out of interest from your using of both lenses, when the 2*TC is attached to the 70-200mm how did you find the other aspects of the lens, those of AF speed and IS performance? I ask because on an image quality side the 70-200mm is standing up brilliantly against the 100-400mm that you have tested it against.

Edit actually if I might be so bold as to ask for one more thing would it be possible to see the results of this test using your 350D camera body? I know from tests and my own experience that teleconverter performance pushes both the lens and the camera body and that higher performance bodies can pull more quality out of the setup than lower grade ones - so for me on a 400D and not able to upgrade that for a long while I would b greatfull to see the combos performance on a similar grade of body (and sadly all the pro testing sites stick to 1D, 7D and 5D line camera bodies for their tests).

The AF speed with the 2x TC is slowed down. I think you could still use it for sports though at least on a good body.

The IS is a different story. The 4 stop IS of the 70-200II is much better than the 2 stop (I believe) IS of the 100-400. Thus you could shoot as much as 2 stops slower with the more modern IS of the 70-200II.

I would be happy to perform a test with the XT. It has dead batteries so I cant do it before tomorrow or more likely Sat...

mikeassk wrote in post #10135081
cool,

for close to 3,000 you can do what the 100-400 does for 1600$. I am truly impressed

Seriously though, the beef I always had was focus speed with that 2X.

As opposed to spending $4k+ to have the 100-400 and do the things that 100-400 can't do.

I've been shooting a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS + Canon 2x TC Mk II, and I can honestly say that I don't have an issue w/ the AF speed. I shoot fast-action sports (lacrosse), and use center-point focus, and I've been happy w/ the performance so far.

mikeassk wrote in post #10135081
cool,

for close to 3,000 you can do what the 100-400 does for 1600$. I am truly impressed

Seriously though, the beef I always had was focus speed with that 2X.

no, that's not it.

for 3000 you get what the new 70-200 can do in it's native focal range AND what the 100-400 can do.

J.

mebailey wrote in post #10135043
I had discussed doing this comparo with a couple of other members a few days ago. I enjoy the discussion these threads typically lead to. This is a quick and dirty comparison. A much better controlled comparison is at the digital picture I believe...

I had to do the test outside to get enough light to get respectable speeds. The problem was it was extremely windy and all my focus targets kept blowing around. I finally had to settle on a Allstate folder wedged in the fence (4-5m) and a shot of the neighbors house (~50m). The folder shots were taken from a tripod and the house shots were handheld with IS. I noticed the 100-400 shots were over a stop underexposed but the house shots were ok?? I shot all of them wide open with both lenses (f/5.6) and iso 100. Speeds on the handheld shots were fast enough to preclude camera movement as a problem.
Here are the native test shots. Crops to follow.

Any comments on the AF speed with the TC in place? I'm thinking of using this instead of my 300 f/4L for some sports situations where weight is an issue. If the AF speed is still fast, that would be huge. I'd be using the 1.4TC though.

j.

mikeassk wrote in post #10135081
cool,

for close to 3,000 you can do what the 100-400 does for 1600$. I am truly impressed

Seriously though, the beef I always had was focus speed with that 2X.

Ide rather carry one 70-200 and a 2xTC then a 70-200 AND a 100-400

Impressive results.

I like the versatility of the tc combo. Thanks for the comparison.

Canon please come out with a 200-400/4 IS.