Compare Canon 70-200 2.8L and 100-400L

07/04/2007 02:06:57 AM · #1

This is just a quick semi-scientific comparison of two lenses (the Canon 70-200 2.8L against the Canon 100-400L), both with and without the Canon 2x TC on the 70-200 lens.

================================================

First, let me admit the flaws in this test!

1) I printed on matte paper. The effect of which was not noticed until I looked at the image captured by the camera and noticed all of the spots!

2) None of this is calibrated. I did the best I could to get the camera parallel to the paper, and to fill the frame to the same degree regardless of lens.

3) I used auto focus and took 3 shots with each lens/combo, and kept the sharpest of the three.

For my test, I used this chart:

(seen here, photographed with the 70-200 2.8 without TC)

To get your own copy of this chart, click here.

Now, here are the test results:

Canon Mark III with Canon 70-200 2.8L lens zoomed to 200mm f/5.6

Canon Mark III with Canon 70-200 2.8L WITH Canon 2x TeleConverter zoomed to 400mm f/5.6

Canon Mark III with Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L lens zoomed to 400mm f/5.6

Note that the sharpest of the bunch is the 70-200L lens WITHOUT the TC, zoomed to 200mm. The other two images were zoomed to 400mm. Note, however, that the 100-400 is almost as sharp as the 70-200L without TC, but that with the TC, the sharpness and contrast dropped significantly.

All of these are 100% crops with _NO_ sharpening whatsoever (images shot in raw, converted via Lightroom, with sharpening set to 0%).

ButterflySis

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/04/2007 12:34:29 PM · #2

David, thanks sooo much for taking the time to do this! The results are interesting. The TC definitely makes for soft images. To me, though, the non-TC and 100-400 images are awfully close. I can't really tell which is softer. Interesting.

So, it looks like they are both terrific lenses. The 2.8 would be nice but I'm really after length so...the 100-400 it is. :-)

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

07/04/2007 12:41:01 PM · #3

Originally posted by ButterflySis:

the non-TC and 100-400 images are awfully close. I can't really tell which is softer. Interesting.

The 2.8 is softer, but you are comparing one lense at the end of its range (70-200) with another lense in the middle of its range (100-400) - so the results aren't really suprising.

Very informative comparison.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

07/04/2007 12:46:49 PM · #4

Definitely the result I would have expected at 400mm. I find that, with the 2.0x II converter, it's necessary to stop the 70-200 down to f/8 or better, f/11. I'd still suspect that you'd see some differences in contrast, though.
The 70-200 with the 2.0xII converter is definitely a usable combination, in very good light, and particularly on the 5D, where the pixel density is a little less aggressive and thus the softening is a little less apparent. I did not like the combination *at all* on the 10D, but I do use it occasionally on the 5D.

ButterflySis

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/04/2007 12:53:00 PM · #5

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by ButterflySis:
the non-TC and 100-400 images are awfully close. I can't really tell which is softer. Interesting.

The 2.8 is softer, but you are comparing one lense at the end of its range (70-200) with another lense in the middle of its range (100-400) - so the results aren't really suprising.

Very informative comparison.

Good point!

lynnesite

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

07/04/2007 01:16:37 PM · #6

And it's kinda known that the 2x TC is soft, compared to the 1.4x.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

07/04/2007 01:20:25 PM · #7

Originally posted by lynnesite:

And it's kinda known that the 2x TC is soft, compared to the 1.4x.

This is true. My reason for using the 2x, is that it gives the two lens a similar range (140-400 versus 100-400, and at the long end, both are f/5.6).

I used to use the 70-200+2x all the time for my sports images, but I decided that it was just too soft. And so I started renting the 100-400.
The push-pull zoom takes a little getting used to, but I definitely like the sharpness better.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

07/04/2007 01:20:48 PM · #8

Originally posted by lynnesite:

And it's kinda known that the 2x TC is soft, compared to the 1.4x.

It's not that the TC itself is soft, it's that it is magnifying the central part of the image from the lens so much that it shows up softness and other defects in the projected image. It does add a small amount of additional degradation, including reduced contrast.

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

07/04/2007 01:21:11 PM · #9

Is the push-pull the dust inhaler I've heard it can be? I almost bought the 100-400 till I read up on that aspect of it.

cloudsme

Canon EOS R5

07/04/2007 01:38:25 PM · #10

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Is the push-pull the dust inhaler I've heard it can be? I almost bought the 100-400 till I read up on that aspect of it.

I've got both lenses, and I love them both. I use them quite differently however. The 100-400 is a great nature, and sports lens. You can handhold it easily with the IS. I am amazed at the clarity at 400mm. I just put my face up to the back of the lens and push-pulled it, and you do get a blast of air out of the back of the lens when you do this. I have also noticed more dust on my sensor with the lens compared to others. I don't love this lens at less than 400mm. Contrast is just not there. It is not a very good portait lens.

The 70-200 is an amazing lens. The sharpness and contrast and bokeh of this lens takes my breath away. For portaits or close action shots, it can't be beat. Not enough magnification on my full frame to shoot wildlife.

They are really two completely different lenses. The one you pick should depend on how you want to use it.

07/04/2007 01:39:45 PM · #11

I have the 2.8 IS. Excellent lense, no regrets. Was just curious about the dust thing with a push/pull. Thanks for the info.

07/04/2007 01:51:04 PM · #12

One thing that I forgot to add to my report, that I thought was interesting...

I mentioned that I used autofocus. I turned on all of the Mark III's AF sensors, so I could see which one(s) were detecting focus. For the "three shots" I fired from each lens, I repeatedly activated the auto focus until I saw the most number of focus points light up (while preferring that the center point be lit).

Anyway, what I found interesting was that the 100-400 would light up NEARLY ALL of the focus points. The 70-200 without TC would light up around half of the focus points. And with the TC, I'd be lucky to get five or six AF points lit up, often it was just one or two.

Well... I thought it was interesting. To me it seemed to predict that the 100-400 (@ 400mm) would be the sharper image overall, when even compared to the 70-200 (@200mm).

smurfguy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/04/2007 02:01:14 PM · #13

Great data, David. I know these are popular setups.

I might like to see this done with the four flavors of 70-200, but I doubt anybody has access to all four. I was fascinated to find that they are actually quite different in a lot of their physical specs (filter size, max magnification, length, weight, etc.)

Originally posted by ButterflySis:

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by ButterflySis:
the non-TC and 100-400 images are awfully close. I can't really tell which is softer. Interesting.

The 2.8 is softer, but you are comparing one lense at the end of its range (70-200) with another lense in the middle of its range (100-400) - so the results aren't really suprising.
Very informative comparison.

Good point!

The way I read it, they are all at the end of their range. Jen, the difference in sharpness between the two lenses (without TC) is most apparent to me in the text at the bottom: "//normankoren.com/"

Cheers,
-Jeff

ButterflySis

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/04/2007 02:29:10 PM · #14

Originally posted by smurfguy:

Jen, the difference in sharpness between the two lenses (without TC) is most apparent to me in the text at the bottom: "//normankoren.com/"

Cheers,
-Jeff

You're right. I see it. Also looks more contrasty so that may make it appear sharper too.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/04/2007 03:11:04 PM · #15

Originally posted by smurfguy:

The way I read it, they are all at the end of their range. Jen, the difference in sharpness between the two lenses (without TC) is most apparent to me in the text at the bottom: "//normankoren.com/"

Hmm you're right, I misread. I chave the 70-200 F4 and 2.8 IS, I could do a comparison of those two. We'll see if I find some motivation this afternoon.

C-Fox

Canon EOS-20D

07/04/2007 03:12:32 PM · #16

i am wavering between the 100-400 and the 300 prime, (I think I will go with the one-400 because the Mark III is a 1.3 crop and I will want that extra little bit. My other otheroption is to use the 300 prime with a 1.4 tc

07/04/2007 03:25:12 PM · #17

Originally posted by smurfguy:

The way I read it, they are all at the end of their range.

Yeah, sorry, I missed seeing this before. This is correct. My primary motivation was to compare 400mm to 400mm because sports shooting is my goal with those two setups. But secondarily, I thought I might check to see just how sharp the 70-200 was all by itself at the 200mm end.

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II