70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions? - Page 4
PhotoCamel: Your friendly photo community, with free discussion forums, digital photography reviews, photo sharing, galleries, downloads, blogs, photography contests, and prizes.
Photos of the Week Photos of the Week
 

Go Back   PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > Cameras and Lenses > Canon

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #31
Vicuna
 
Hackbone's Avatar
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
Posts: 233
CamelKarma: 580745
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

A 3x converter will kill some of the ability to gather light.
Hackbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #32
Photocamel Master
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 9,271
CamelKarma: 1440255
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Haven't heard of 3x converters for years. A true 3x converter will effectively make an f/2.8 lens into an f/8.4 lens with triple the focal length, which is a hair over 3 stops reduction in light gathering power, and almost certainly degrade or even disable autofocus. This doesn't even count any degradation the converter may cause in the lens' sharpness. With these disadvantages, it should be no surprise that the market for 3x teleconverters is microscopic.
scoundrel1728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #33
Vicuna
 
Hackbone's Avatar
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
Posts: 233
CamelKarma: 580745
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Sorry, big fingers, should have been 2x.
Hackbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #34
Llama
 
Didereaux's Avatar
 
Location: swamplands of East Texas
Posts: 958
CamelKarma: 1383701
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

2X converter = -2 STOPS where is the advantage? 70-200 only gives you a piddling 30mm wider view. Have both and I can tell you flat out that the 100-400 is far more versatile for sports and wildlife...and in some instances even landscape.
Didereaux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #35
Photocamel Master
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 9,271
CamelKarma: 1440255
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Assuming that it is a choice between a 70-200 mm f/2.8 and the 100-400 mm f/5.6, the former would make more sense if you find yourself shooting a lot under low light or indoors, especially if you only occasionally need the extra length. Also, if you don't have anything else to fill in the 70-100 mm hole, you might need something, especially if you shoot with an APS-C imager as I do. This focal length range is less important for full-frame shooters. There is a reason that there weren't many offerings in the 58-80 mm range before (good) zoom lenses were developed.
scoundrel1728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #36
Vicuna
 
Location: Hudson,WI
Posts: 191
CamelKarma: 129
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

I have both of these lense. I love the 100-400 Mk ll but it won’t cut it for indoor sports, get the 70-200 f2.8
lowbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #37
Llama
 
Didereaux's Avatar
 
Location: swamplands of East Texas
Posts: 958
CamelKarma: 1383701
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

You know something some experts on here are not talking about is that you are working with +/- 2 stops. you do realize that almost all the good dslrs today operate quite well at 3200 ISO, not much image degradation from 800 to 3200 with these cameras(that's 2 stops btw). That being the case what you are looking at with the 70-200 2.8 is bokeh....that is ALL so if you want to look impressive then spend the big $$$ for a 2.8 to shoot high schoolers.
Didereaux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #38
Vicuna
 
Location: Hudson,WI
Posts: 191
CamelKarma: 129
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Didereaux View Post
You know something some experts on here are not talking about is that you are working with +/- 2 stops. you do realize that almost all the good dslrs today operate quite well at 3200 ISO, not much image degradation from 800 to 3200 with these cameras(that's 2 stops btw). That being the case what you are looking at with the 70-200 2.8 is bokeh....that is ALL so if you want to look impressive then spend the big $$$ for a 2.8 to shoot high schoolers.
Not necessarily, some high school gyms are so poorly lit that iso 6400 or higher won’t give you a decent shutter speed even with f2.8
lowbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #39
Llama
 
Didereaux's Avatar
 
Location: swamplands of East Texas
Posts: 958
CamelKarma: 1383701
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowbone View Post
Not necessarily, some high school gyms are so poorly lit that iso 6400 or higher won’t give you a decent shutter speed even with f2.8
In which case the argument or discussion about which lens is better is a moot one. But you put a good lens on a Canon 6D and 6400 ISO is very usable.
Didereaux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21 Hours Ago   #40
Guanaco
 
Location: Strayl-ya
Posts: 291
CamelKarma: 185
Editing OK?: Ask first
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Probably worthwhile mentioning again that the Opening Post to this conversation was made in January 2015. Subsequently, the OP made a purchase (see post #14 dated February 2015). This conversation was bumped-up in position on this forum, only due to a new question which was asked by 'bloobirdies', (see post #25, October 2017)

However:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Didereaux View Post
2X converter = -2 STOPS where is the advantage? 70-200 only gives you a piddling 30mm wider view. Have both and I can tell you flat out that the 100-400 is far more versatile for sports and wildlife...and in some instances even landscape. . .

You know something some experts on here are not talking about is that you are working with +/- 2 stops. you do realize that almost all the good dslrs today operate quite well at 3200 ISO, not much image degradation from 800 to 3200 with these cameras (that's 2 stops btw). That being the case what you are looking at with the 70-200 2.8 is bokeh....that is ALL so if you want to look impressive then spend the big $$$ for a 2.8 to shoot high schoolers.
There’s more to buying a 70 to 200/2/8 for sports work than just the Bokeh: this is especially so for many INDOOR sports where a fast aperture is often required to attain a desired Shutter Speed at the lowest possible ISO and considering that the OP mentioned versatility using the lens for indoor and outdoor sports, I think it is rather mono-focused to suggest that the 100 to 400 is definitively far more versatile for those sports purposes.

As previously mentioned some Sports Interiors are quite low level light (and that is not ONLY High School Arenas). Additionally, some indoor sports require a reasonably fast shutter speed. One example is Swimming. Another is Basket Ball. Where even at National / Olympic Level Arenas there are often (important) meets which (especially if not telecast) the lighting banks are not fully utilized.

In these situations, yes, often one is pulling shots at ISO3200 and ISO 6400with an F/2.8 lens to get the desired/necessary Shutter Speed – this has nothing to do with Bokeh, but rather it is an essential technical requirement to make the shot.

I am not too sure to whom the comment “experts” refers, so probably best to get some background out fo the way – I have the 70 to 200/2.8L and I have used two versions of the (original) 100 to 400L and my view is that the 100 to 400 is a very good to excellent lens, especially useful value for money lens for many outdoor sports and that usefulness is enhanced if the lens is used with an APS-C Camera – something like the 7DMkII as one example which gives very fine results. I understand that the 100 to 400L MkII is superior, though I have not used that lens. I do not own a 100 to 400, nor would I need one as I can use either a 400/2.8 or a 300/2.8 for sports assignments.

I have both Canon x1.4 and x2.0 Extenders EF MkII. I have used all three canon 70 to 200/2.8 L lenses and the MkII IS is the superior of the three in all respects, next is the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 (not IS). This hierachy is also true when these three 70 to 200/ 2.8 lenses are used with either of the Canon Extenders EF. Additionally I note that the MkIII Extenders EF provide better results, though not really noticeable unless the lens is used wide open. The (small) image quality gain of the 70 to 200 F/2.8 MkII IS over the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 did not warrant my upgrading, though if I were buying this lens for the first time now I would choose the MkII IS.

For my purposes the IS on this lens is almost an un-necessary component, because of the Shutter Speed that I require and I nearly always use a Monopod – but on that point, it is worth noting for mostly all Photographers it is very rare that IS is not a useful addition to have available.

I have done many (in the field) A/B comparisons with the 70 to 200/2.8 + x2.0 EF Extender to the 100 to 400L. I concur / confirm Max’s statement that the 100 to 400 focuses faster (and also follows focus better) than any of the 70 to 200/2.8 + x2.0 Extenders. However, for many sports, especially rhythmic sports or those sports where there is a momentary pause, the use of a x2.0 on a 70 to 200/2.8 is a very good option.

Considering the OP could only afford EITHER the 70 to 20 or the 100 to 400 AND the OP wanted to use the lens for BOTH Indoor and Outdoor Sports, I think that buying the 70 to 200 and an x2.0 extender was the more versatile option: thereby generally allowing the fast aperture for indoor work where the light could be quite low, yet still having the reach of 400mm for outdoor work.

Back to some background and addressing the comment about ‘experts’ – I am not supposing any expert status, however I do have a few flying hours under my belt with a broad brush of experiences: including but not limited to: Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games and numerous regular National and International events, mainly Swimming and Field Hockey more recently, and farther back: Cricket; Rugby Union and Rugby League.

But Pictures probably speak better than words

Using the 70 to 200/2.8 MkII IS the OP can expect to yield images like this when using the lens for low light indoor Sports work:




And with an EF 2.0 Extender mounted on the 70 to 200, images like this, outdoors:



In fact the OP should get better than those images in both situations, as the above were made with the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 USM

WW

All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2018 WMW 1965~1996


__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
William W is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

« PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > Cameras and Lenses > Canon »


Share this topic:

Thread Tools
Display Modes