New Canon 70-200/28 IS II + TC 2x better than 100-400/ IS ?

[fabiobernardino]

With the new lenses from Canon I'm considering upgrading my Bigma to a 70-200/2.8 IS II plus TC 2x II or III (when available).

There is the new 70-300/5.6 L and the overall criticism that I read everywhere is that they should update the 100-400 IS L. And I thing that I read somewhere in this forum someone commenting who would need a new 100-400 if they could have the 70-200/2.8 VR II + TC 2x.

So my question is:
I have the old Bigma (50-500, no OS, optical stabiliser). Is it worth the upgrade the cited combo regarding image quality and autofocus speed ?

Thank you.
ps: I already have a 70-200/4 L IS, my camera is a 50D.

[Arthur Morris]

Fabio,

You sneaked a lot of questions into this thread :) Here goes:

With the new lenses from Canon I'm considering upgrading my Bigma to a 70-200/2.8 IS II plus TC 2x II or III (when available).

That sounds like a good plan.

There is the new 70-300/5.6 L and the overall criticism that I read everywhere is that they should update the 100-400 IS L.

Where I come from that is not a criticism of the new lens it is just somebody's opinion....

And I think (sic...) that I read somewhere in this forum someone commenting who would need a new 100-400 if they could have the 70-200/2.8 VR II + TC 2x?

That is a very good question. Patrick Sparkman, one of my most talented students, used the 70-200 a ton on last summer's Galapagos trip. He loved it with the 2X TC that he left on the lens most of the time. I am borrowing the lens again for a trip to San Diego before Bosque so that I can do some flight photography with the 2X. I will let folks know how I do.

So my question is: I have the old Bigma (50-500, no OS, optical stabiliser). Is it worth the upgrade the cited combo regarding image quality and autofocus speed ?

How can anybody but you know if anything is worth it to you??? As for me, I do not know anything about IQ with the Bigma as I have never used one so I cannot make any comparisons. I made some excellent wildlife images with the lens and the 1.4X TC in Wyoming.

ps: I already have a 70-200/4 L IS, my camera is a 50D.

I own and love that one.

[Patrick Sparkman]

I shot thousands of photos in the Galapagos with the 70-200 f2.8 II and the 2X TC. I did not compare it back to back with the 100-400, so I don't know what the pixel peepers would say. Of course it is not as sharp as the 800 f5.6, nor does it track flight as well with the TC as the 400 f5.6, but it is close. Where it really made up the difference for me was the IS performance. No other 400mm lens comes close to the IS performance (of course the 400 5.6 does not have IS) of this combo. Artie loaned me his 400 DO, and while it focused quicker at 400mm, the images were not particularly better because the IS on the 70-200 is better. For me having the "relatively" lightweight, 70-400 zoom capability, 4 ft focus distance, and great hand hold-ability, all in one lens made it the perfect compliment to my 800 f5.6. Lastly, I have never liked the push-pull zoom on the 400 and prefer the twist zoom on the 70-200.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Patrick. Feel free to post and bird image created with the lens and the 2X here :) Or two. :) :)

[Patrick Sparkman]

How to choose, how to choose?

Here is one that represents why this was a great compliment to the 800. We were shooting small finches with the 800, when suddenly this juvi Galapagos Hawk comes flying in. No time to think, just react. The 70-200 with the 2x was on a strap around my neck, so I just wheeled and shot.

Canon 1D IV, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 2X TC, at 400mm, ISO 800, f5.6, 1/2000 sec

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Patrick. Young and fast is a nice combo :) I stood there and watched. This one looks great to me. Show us a finch at four feet and I will be sold!

[Jeff Dyck]

Fabio,

I can't speak to the specific comparisons you are looking for, but I can tell you my experience with the equipment I personally have. I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and think it is just a fantastic lens . As Patrick says - the image quality is excellent with a 2x teleconverter, and the image stabilization makes up for a lot. The only downside for me - the 70-200 f2.8 (again, when using a 2x teleconverter), definitely does not focus as fast or track focus as well as my 400 f5.6 - an issue if you do a lot of in-flight shots.

[Doug Brown]

I'm curious about something. What are your typical photographic subjects, and how often do you find yourself photographing at under 200mm of focal length?

[Arthur Morris]

Fabio, I can't speak to the specific comparisons you are looking for, but I can tell you my experience with the equipment I personally have. I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and think it is just a fantastic lens . As Patrick says - the image quality is excellent with a 2x teleconverter, and the image stabilization makes up for a lot. The only downside for me - the 70-200 f2.8 (again, when using a 2x teleconverter), definitely does not focus as fast or track focus as well as my 400 f5.6 - an issue if you do a lot of in-flight shots.

Jeff, Do you have the older 70-200 f/2.8 or the newer version. The discussion here is about the newer one :)

[Patrick Sparkman]

Ok, here is one at 4 feet! You have to be quick, and this one really shows the versatility of the combo. I had to zoom out to 185mm, but I did clip his toe so I should have gone a little more.

Canon 1D IV, Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 2X TC, ISO 3200 (don't ask me why I was that high?:confused:), f5.6, 1/1250 sec.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks again PS. It is an amazing combo for the Galapagos and elsewhere. Around here we hang folks for clipping toes.

Is this a Cactus Finch?

[Arthur Morris]

Don't ask me why... Added canvas and toe, cleaned up rock, lightened and sharpened face.... I gotta be nuts. I coulda done better without your name there :)

[Jeff Dyck]

Jeff, Do you have the older 70-200 f/2.8 or the newer version. The discussion here is about the newer one :)

Yes Artie - I have the "OG" version of the 70-200 f2.8. I cannot comment on the "II" version, but as I stated - the differences in focus speed / tracking with my "I" version + 2x TC (vs. the 400 f5.6) are quite noticeable. That being said, I still think the 70-200 is the finest lens I own.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for the clarification.

[fabiobernardino]

Thank you all who contributed. Portuguese is my primary language so excuse me for some english/grammar errors (specially regarding prepositions :)).

I'm not a pro shooter nor I do make a living from photography. So putting my money in this (now) hobby is a cost vs benefit game. If cost was not an issue, we all would have L glass. If I were a pro I'd not hesitate to have a 70-200/2.8 IS in my bag. I'm looking for the best image quality I can afford so I try to upgrade my tools to reach this goal and/or make life easier (IS). I live in Rio de Janeiro so it's not like going to B&H or FNAC and trying the lens you intend to buy. I usually shop at B&H and I'm considering this combo because of the instant rebate.

When I bought the Bigma, I was considering also the 400/5.6 but I wasn't sure how a fixed 400mm would be useful. If it had IS, I'd have opted for it.

So I think I could summarize my questions (for those who have tested) regarding the 70-200/2.8 IS II + Canon TC 2x II to:
1) Is IQ of this combo bettter than Bigma at the long range ?
2) focus speed: too slow ? Better than Bigma ?

Doug, when I usually go out with the Bigma I'm looking for wildlife (birds) or I'm shooting some action sport (surf, windsurfing).
On the former i'm using a monopod and the latter a tripod. I already have a 70-200/4 IS. Upgraded from a 70-200/4L. I also used a 70-300/IS and the 70-200/4 (both) with a Kenko 1.4x tc. I can say that even with the TC, both 70-200 are a lot faster to focus than the 70-300/IS. The IQ of this 70-300 copy was good enough for me.

Patrick Sparkman, great shots ! Thank you for your comments regarding the use of the TC 2x.

[Charles Glatzer]

What is sharp to one person may not be so for another. The new 70-200f/2.8 II is quite good with a 1.4 x, but not my cup of tea with the 2x. AF acquisition is slow for BIF, and when compared to a straight 400 f/5.6, 300 f/2.8 w/1.4x or 400 DO there is no comparison. Judging images for critical sharpness on the web is fraught with too many variables to be anything but subjective. In real world situations the images shot closed down at least one stop from wide open will prove sharper. Meaning at least f/8, as compared to f/5.6 with the 2x. I urge you not to take my word on this, but to try it for yourself. Use the flash to negate camera shake.

When shooting less than 200mm with a 70-200 take off the converters!!!! Why loose the f/stop and resolution when it is not necessary.

Photography is the art of compromise...typically it comes down to the versatility of zooms vs fixed and converters, along with travel and weight issues. No one can make the decision for you.

BTW-we tested 4 new 70-200 II lenses on a recent workshop 3 proved sharp, with the other being well off even with micro adjustment. The lens was returned and replaced with another. Test your equipment!!!!!

Best,

Chas

[Arthur Morris]

Fabio,

re:

So I think I could summarize my questions (for those who have tested) regarding the 70-200/2.8 IS II + Canon TC 2x II to:
1) Is IQ of this combo bettter than Bigma at the long range ?
2) focus speed: too slow ? Better than Bigma ?

1-You are always going to have well more reach (156% more magnification) with 500mm of focal length then with 400mm. (The size of the subject in the frame is a function of the square of the focal length.) Unless there is someone out there who has used both of the rigs that you mention above nobody can know which offers better IQ. And even if there were someone who used both rigs their view of IQ would be a subjective one. So pretty much the only person who might decide which is better would be you after using both set-ups.

2-Again, a totally subjective question that could be answered only by someone who has used or at least tested both lenses, and again, their view would only be an opinion. I can assure you that the Canon 70-200mm with the 2X can--in the right hands, produce quality images. (see Panes 5 and 12 above).

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Chas. Please describe your testing procedures.

[Charles Glatzer]

Thanks Chas. Please describe your testing procedures.

Hey Artie,

I used the EOS Utility and Live Preview with both flat text parallel and 45 degree angle to a leveled camera at widest aperture for micro-adjustment. It was readily apparent to all if the camera/lens combo was front or back focusing. The new 70-200 II in question would not come up sharp anywhere on the target. All test were done in the presence of participants. Once I started doing this everyone present wanted it done with thier lenses and we spent the better part of two hours tweaking lenses with mico-adjustments.

For the converter test we tacked a dollar bill on the wall, using flash @ 1/250 to negate camera shake, viewing images at 100% taken wide open and 1 stop and two stops closed down.

Warmest Regards,

Chas

[fabiobernardino]

Fabio,

re:

2-Again, a totally subjective question that could be answered only by someone who has used or at least tested both lenses, and again, their view would only be an opinion. I can assure you that the Canon 70-200mm with the 2X can--in the right hands, produce quality images. (see Panes 5 and 12 above).

You're right. Since I've read about Bigmas before in this forum I thought that maybe someone could have done this comparison. Keep in my mind that I live in Rio de Janeiro, which is a LOT different from USA or Canada. If we had a rental service here I'd rent and try for myself. About better IQ, I use as a reference photozone.de and I check their graphics. So I have an idea of a lens strong and weak points. As we all know, there is no perfect lens. Maybe the new 300/2.8 IS II ? :):)

Chas, good point about testing. Unfortunately not possible the way things work around here.

[Roger Clark]

Fabio,
There is a possible way. If someone somewhere in the world had the same model camera and the 70-200, then you two agree to image the same target (e.g. a US dollar bill, or the Moon on the same evening, or web download of a test target), then you could compare images. I only have a 70-200 f/4. I personally like imaging the Moon because it is such a high contrast subject against a dark sky that it reveals many lens problems. At focal lengths 400mm and shorter, atmospheric smearing is minimal when imaging the Moon if high in the sky.

Roger

[Patrick Sparkman]

Thanks for doing the work I was planning on doing to this image Artie. Can I send you the original, without my name to finish for me? ;)

Chas, trust me I understand not to use teleconverters if I don't have to. But when you have been working at 400mm; then suddenly a bird lands 4 feet away, you drop to the ground to get a good background, compose the shot, take two pictures before an un-named member of the tour group nearly clocks the bird in the head with their tripod leg causing it to fly away, all in about 5 seconds......you take what you can get.:)

[Patrick Sparkman]

BTW Artie, that was a Cactus finch taken on Santa Fe Island.

[Milan V]

Look here for tests. Very interesting.
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...on_100-400.htm

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...on_100-400.htm

[Charles Glatzer]

[QUOTE=Patrick Sparkman;585429]Thanks for doing the work I was planning on doing to this image Artie. Can I send you the original, without my name to finish for me? ;)

Chas, trust me I understand not to use teleconverters if I don't have to. But when you have been working at 400mm; then suddenly a bird lands 4 feet away, you drop to the ground to get a good background, compose the shot, take two pictures before an un-named member of the tour group nearly clocks the bird in the head with their tripod leg causing it to fly away, all in about 5 seconds......you take what you can get.


Patrick,

As mentioned, I fully understand it often comes down to the versatility of zooms, along with travel and weight issues. It really is an individual decision, and there is no right or wrong.
I urge everyone to test equipment for themselves, and draw there own conclusions. And, to thine own self be true.


Admittedly, I am a bit of an extremist when it comes to my own in-camera/lens sharpness.

I wish you continued success in your image making.

Warmest Regards,


Chas

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Artie, I used the EOS Utility and Live Preview with both flat text parallel and 45 degree angle to a leveled camera at widest aperture for micro-adjustment. It was readily apparent to all if the camera/lens combo was front or back focusing. The new 70-200 II in question would not come up sharp anywhere on the target. All test were done in the presence of participants. Once I started doing this everyone present wanted it done with thier lenses and we spent the better part of two hours tweaking lenses with mico-adjustments. For the converter test we tacked a dollar bill on the wall, using flash @ 1/250 to negate camera shake, viewing images at 100% taken wide open and 1 stop and two stops closed down. Warmest Regards, Chas

Thanks a ton Chas. When you say "used the EOS Utility and Live Preview" I am confused... Were you looking at the image on a laptop (or were you using Live View and looking at the LCD screen)? It should be obvious that I do not know what EOS Utility is.... :o Sorry for my density :)

[Arthur Morris]

Fabio, I am betting that the new 300 f/2.8L IS II that tests out sharp with micro adjustment is gonna be world class sharp with either the 1.4 or 2X III TCs but it will cost you plenty.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for doing the work I was planning on doing to this image Artie. Can I send you the original, without my name to finish for me? ;)

YAW. No way am I gonna do your work for you :)

[Charles Glatzer]

Thanks a ton Chas. When you say "used the EOS Utility and Live Preview" I am confused... Were you looking at the image on a laptop (or were you using Live View and looking at the LCD screen)? It should be obvious that I do not know what EOS Utility is.... :o Sorry for my density :)

Artie,

The EOS Utility comes with all Canon cameras as one of the supplied DVD's. The camera is linked to a computer and the images are viewed in real time on screen. I believe there was a big post on the procedure here or on another site.

Best,

Chas

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks again Bud. That what I was thinking. I shall dig out the CD and the cable. And then did into the Camera Body Instruction manual. Do you know if Nikon has anything similar?

[Dan Avelon]

Artie,

The EOS Utility comes with all Canon cameras as one of the supplied DVD's. The camera is linked to a computer and the images are viewed in real time on screen. I believe there was a big post on the procedure here or on another site.

Best,

Chas

This is the thread you are referring to I think, Arash Hazeghi's method:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ustment-tricks

I am not sure what has happened to the figures in the thread...it had everything step by step. Can the gear mod fix it?

Thread mentions Nikon has equivalent method.



Thanks,
Dan

[Arthur Morris]

I am not sure what has happened to the figures in the thread...it had everything step by step. Can the gear mod fix it? Dan

Thanks for the link Dan. Arash intentionally deleted the images that were hosted off site.

[fabiobernardino]

Roger, I'm a big fan of your posts. Good suggestion about testing the lenses, but I think it should be done in the same camera body.

Milan, great site. I think I had visited it before buying my Bigma (vs 100-400L). Now it's in my bookmarks.

Artie, I believe the 300/2.8 IS II will be one of Canon's sharpest lens. My plan is to win the lottery and I buy it. ;)

By the way, EOS utility has a new version. 2.9. I downloaded it today.

Thank you for

[Doug Brown]

Fabio, I guess I was trying to figure out how often you work at the shorter focal lengths. To me, having to use a 2x just to get to 400mm is an unacceptable option, but I don't often go below 400mm.

[Geraldo Hofmann]

I wish the 400mm 5.6 would get IS ... come on CAnon its time.

With the new zooms I am more and more worried about focal length breathing which makes the 100-400mm for example a shorter focal length than the 400mm at close distance. ( I tested the 100-400mm with a tripod mounted camera against the 400mm 5.6 http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/june.html ) The same is true even more for the Sigma 50-500.,

Or look at the new 70-300mm L same Maximum Magnification and same minimum foc. distance of 1.2m as the 70-200 4.0 means at 1.2 they have the same focal length. The benefit of 300mm is gone when you work with this lens at close distance.


Geraldo

[fabiobernardino]

Fabio, I guess I was trying to figure out how often you work at the shorter focal lengths. To me, having to use a 2x just to get to 400mm is an unacceptable option, but I don't often go below 400mm.

Doug, I already have the 70-200/4 IS L. There is a rebate going on which is $400 OFF if you buy a 7D,5D or 60D with this lens. My goal with the 2.8 II (+TC 2x) is to replace the Bigma; I know I'd gain 3 or 4 fstops (IS), weather sealing, better construction and flexibility. Not sure about AF speed and IQ. But my main use for it would be with the TC 2X (to replace the Bigma). Actually the Bigma is said to be 460mm so I'm not losing that much.

And I just read this rumor:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/e...-2-coming-cr2/

So maybe it's time to wait a little...

Geraldo, great shots at Itatiaia.
http://www.hofmann-photography.de/in...ns/02Itatiaia/
Next time you plan to go there let me know.

[Roger Clark]

Good suggestion about testing the lenses, but I think it should be done in the same camera body.

Fabio,

I did say test with the same camera model. Why insist the same actual body? If you believe bodies of the same model produce different sharpness results, then why believe a test on a lens of the same model?

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

I urge everyone to check out Peter's informative post--see the link above. I am headed in exactly that direction and will be (finally) ordering the big Lens Align tomorrow. The rest I have :)

[Ian Cassell]

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but has anyone compared the Lens Align with the far-less-expensive Datacolor Spyderlenscal?

[Arthur Morris]

I looked at the Spyder thing and it looks to me like a cheap imitation. The problems like include: size to small for big glass and no way to ensure that the back of the camera is perfectly parallel to the focus target.