2.0x Extender vs. New Telephoto Lens Comparison

[celson]

I currently own the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM lens and am considering purchasing the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens for an upcoming African safari trip.  Curious to opinions on whether I would be better off buying the EF 2.0X III extender and using it on the 70-200 f/2.8 lens than buying the 100-400?  I have never used an extender, but it would seem from the specs that all I would be giving up on are the low light / longer focal length circumstances - while having the convenience of using a single lens for almost all circumstances and saving almost $1,500...

[ScottyP]

You lose 2 stops of light with the 2.0x extender, but it also hurts your image quality. 

This is is one of those questions that will elicit a lot of subjective answers and maybe some strong opinions, but little real help unless you can see with your own eyes. 

Go go to The Digital Picture website, look in the "tools" section for "lens comparisons".  You can see the 70-200 with a 2x extender side by side with the 100-400 lens.  Make sure you have the same aperture on both lenses to be fair.  You can see center, off center and edges, and you can select different focal lengths.

Judge for yourself, but the IQ hickey with the 2x extender is worse than for the 1.4x extender and you may find it unacceptable. Or you may not. 

[celson]

Thanks Scott.  I forgot to mention...using an older body, 40D.  Will autofocus work at all using the extender? Just work more slowly?

[jrhoffman75]

If you don't see a use for the 100-400 after the safari why not rent one?

[ScottyP]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:

If you don't see a use for the 100-400 after the safari why not rent one?

---

A great point. 

And and as long as you are renting not buying, you could go grander than the limits of your purchase budget.  Like the 200-400 with 1.4 teleconverter built in, or even like a 500mm f/4?

[ScottyP]

To my eye, the 2.0 TC on the 70-200 is a lot less shap than the 100-400 across the whole frame, but especially in the corners.  The TC also adds a lot of chromatic aberration/ purple fringing.  

[celson]

Great thought John...thank you!  I will look into that, but inclined to buy as I travel a fair bit and also shoot my kids sports

[ebiggs1]

celson.

This would not even be a consideration for me. There is no way I would use a 2x on any lens. Even the best 70-200mm in the world as the Canon is.  It is a shame to hamstring such a great lens with a tele converter.  However, I will freely admit the 1.4 extender does work really well with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. I don't use that combo a lot but when I do it is OK.  Some lenses get along fine with the 1.4x but, IMHO, not the 2x.

Just how many "upcoming African safari trip(s)" do you plan or take. One?  Why jeopardise it with anything less then the best you can afford?  Besides you can sell the 100-400mm when you return and are though with it.  Right?

But if I were you there are a couple different options I would consider. One is the ef 400mm f5.6L prime lens.  It is better than the zoom you are considering.  Or if you think IS is a must factor the ef 300mm f4L IS with the 1.4x tele converter.  It would give you a 420mm rig @ f5.6 with IS.  Plus you would have a much better IQ lens for when 400+mm isn't needed.  The 300mm is extremely sharp. I just love that lens.

Current new prides;

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens... $2100

Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens... $1350

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Lens... $1150

Canon Extender EF 1.4X III... $425

Prices are off the top of my heard but I believe they are pretty close.  There might be rebates I don't know about.  There is always used sources and the Canon refurb store.

What camera do you have?  If I was going with your circumstances I would take my Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. My Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens with the Canon Extender EF 1.4X III.

Now that is just me. What do you say?  

[celson]

Thanks for the suggestions.! So your thought would be to go with the 300 + 1.4x TC rather than the 100-400 zoom? Both would give me ~400 at 5.6 as you say...but how do you think image quality would compare at 400 focal length between the two?  I like the thought of the 400 prime, but I DO think the IS is necessary, which throws me back to the option of the 300 prime + 1.4x TC.

[ebiggs1]

celson,

I personally have all the combinations that I suggested. I have used all the combinations I suggested . This is unlike some folks that recommend gear, I have actually used it.

Either the ef 300mm f4 prime or the ef 400mm f5.6 prime is going to be sharper than the new 100-400mm zoom.  Either will be  much better than the older version of that zoom. This will become more apparent as you crop or enlarge that perfect shot.  Especially in printing if you so desire.  If all you intend is showing off on the web, this is not so important.

If you think IS is a worthwhile feature for you I have no doubt the ef 300mm f4L IS USM and 1.4x converter is the way to go.  It offers the distinct advantage to use the 300mm as is, if needed.

I will add one more thought and a suggestion.  It is what I would personally do not considering anything you have said.

I would opt for the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens for Canon. It is selling right at a grand right now.  It is an unbelievable lens for the money.  There is a SIgma model that is very simular but lacks any weather proofing which the Tamron has.  But it is the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens for Canon EF.  Your choice as they are nealy twins in IQ.

Perhaps buying one of those lenses would leave enough money left over for a Canon EOS 80D DSLR Camera ($1200).

 Hmmmmm...?