This or that ?

[Dolby]

One could get a 70-200 L IS II (R23k) and 2x II converter (R3k) - which would give a 140-400 F5.6.

OR

100-400 F4-5.6 L IS (R15k)

At 400mm they're both 400mm, F5.6, IS and L lenses ... would this mean at the length they're be almost identical?

With the saving, one could (almost) still buy a 70-200 L F4 ... so you'd have two L lenses!

 

[MadMailMan]

Yes but you wouldn't have a 70-200 f2,8. Can't beat this lens in low(ish) light.

 

[bwana]

"This" - I'm really no fan of "that".

 

[DylanS]

If I had the money I would get "This"

 

[Paul_S]

I'd also go with "this".

Then when you have saved up some more money and you want a nice sharp 400mm lens you can buy one. Maybe even a 500mm prime.
At the end of the day you end up with two excellent lenses instead of two mediocre lenses (not that L lenses are mediocre).
The 2x TC with 70-200mm lens won't give you the same IQ as the 100-400mm "dust collector" lens but you will have a fantastic 70-200mm lens and you can limp on the 2x TC solution until you can afford the 100-400mm.

 

[Dolby]

So that is not as good as deal as looks :/

Paul_S - do you think the 100-400mm would be sharper than the 70-200 with 1.4x then?

 

[DylanS]

Instead of looking at the 70-200 L IS II why not the 70-200 f2.8 L USM for R12 000

 

[Dolby]

Instead of looking at the 70-200 L IS II why not the 70-200 f2.8 L USM for R12 000

... the IS :/

 

[bwana]

... the IS :/

And no weather sealing.

 

[DylanS]

AhHH I see...

 

[bwana]

AhHH I see...

I'd jump at the non-IS version if it wasn't for that. I'm getting tired of plastic bags on my f/4 when it rains but the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is second on my list of priorities.

 

[Dolby]

bwana - would you agree/disagree that the 70-200 2.8 IS II with 2x converter is the same sharpness as the 100-400 mentioned at full length?

 

[bwana]

bwana - would you agree/disagree that the 70-200 2.8 IS II with 2x converter is the same sharpness as the 100-400 mentioned at full length?

Couldn't tell you. All I know is I've never been particularly impressed by the dust pump and that at the 70-200 range it's one of canons best lenses at the moment, at 200-280 its a fantastic f/4 with the 1.4 TC, and if these are to be believed then the 2x TC is pretty damn good in the right hands.

 

[Dolby]

Yea - I came across those when checking out and they're pretty sharp!

By the way - isn't IS quite vital at 200mm?

 

[bwana]

By the way - isn't IS quite vital at 200mm?

Depends on how fast you've got your shutter speed set. For me, if I can't shoot at at least 1/400th, I might as well go home.

 

[BobJones]

Sounds like you'll be better off with "this" usually wider aperture makes for a better lens

 

[Paul_S]

So that is not as good as deal as looks :/

Paul_S - do you think the 100-400mm would be sharper than the 70-200 with 1.4x then?

The MkII 70-200mm lens with 1.4x TC appears to do very well.
At 280mm f/5.6 it's about as sharp as the 100-400mm at 300mm f/5.6 at the the center and mid frame and actually sharper at the corners of the frame than the 100-400mm lens.

ISO 12233 chart crops:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Play around with the settings on that page. You'll see that the 2x TC does make the IQ suffer a bit but maybe you'll be happy with it.