p.1 #1 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Hi all...
Maybe I've missed this, but has anyone done any real world comparisons between these two setups? Wondering how autofocus and sharpness compares between the RF 100-400mm and RF 70-200mm Z when coupled with the 2X Teleconverter.
I've had the RF 70-200mm F2.8 for a couple years now, along with the RF 100-400. I also have owned the RF 100-500L and EF 100-400L mkII prior to all these, so I'm fairly familiar how all those bigger zooms work. I primarily shoot family photos / and candids plus my kids' sports...nothing really professionally, but I will offer photos to other people if I get some good ones.
While the 100-500 was awesome, it always just felt too big and flashy to take pictures of my kids, plus I use the 70-200 more, so that's why I "downgraded" to the RF 100-400. To be fair, even though it's not an L lens, the RF 100-400 has been a pretty capable zoom for shooting sports and action, and I do like the size and weight, still there are a lot of times I wish it was faster than F8 for speed and subject isolation.
Prior to going mirrorless and getting the bigger zooms, I did use the EF 70-200L mkIII with the 1.4X TC and I thought it did pretty great. So after going mirrorless and using the RF 70-200L, I have kind of missed being able to add the teleconverters when needed. Now that the RF 70-200mm Z lens is out and it can take the TCs again, I am debating going to that setup instead. (I like the idea that I get one stop faster at 400mm, plus the shorter zoom throw and the fact that it is all internal, which is nice for dust and shooting through fences, etc.)
Any thoughts on how those two configurations compare in real-world use?
(I don't know if it matters, but I am using the R6 mkII right now.)
I'm just guessing but whatever difference there is between the two combinations, it's probably less noticeable on the R6II because it's 'only' 24MP. 2x TC usually starts to show some image degradation, particularly with zooms, but if the 70-200Z is as good as people say, It might still be better than the 100-400. But it should be even better with the 1.4x and of course, bare, giving you some flexibility that the 100-400 doesn't provide, with respect to low light conditions or when you want more depth of field and/or background blur control.
I haven't yet tried it, but it's on my list of lenses to borrow from CPS. My interest in it is to pair with the R5II, use with the 1.4x TC and in APS-C mode for certain applications in place of my 200-400 uncropped. It would be 98-280/4 on FF and 157-448 equivalent in APS-C crop and much more portable than the 200-400.
There are at least a couple guys on this board using the Z with TCs. Maybe they can chime in: @stanj @RobAmy
Base at least on these test chart shots, yes, the Z with 2x is noticeably better than the 100-400:
The 100-400 seems to degrade past 300mm. Between 100-300 it looks pretty consistent and isn't that far off from the 70-200 with the 1.4x, at least at 280mm. The 70-200 bare is noticeably better than the 100-400. All these test chart were shot on R5/R5II, so again, 24MP might not reveal as notable differences, compounded by real world shooting conditions potentially minimizing differences further.
p.1 #4 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
I find the 70-200Z with 2xTC to be absolutely indistinguishable from the 100-500. Never tried it against the 100-400 (assuming EF L mk2; I do have the RF100-400 and that's no comparison). If I think I need primarily a 70-200/2.8 and also may need a 400, that's what I take, instead of the 100-500. If I think I need a 500, I take that.
p.1 #5 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Check out this video from Gordon Laing where he compares the RF 70-200 w/ 2x vs. the RF 100-500. I know you're asking about the 100-400 specifically, but the 100-500 is a superior lens, and Gordon's video shows just how well the 70-200 w/ 2x keeps up with it. I'd personally sell the 100-400 and get the 2x TC.
p.1 #6 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Thanks, that video helps a lot. Obviously the 100-500 is sharper than the 100-400, so the fact that the 2.8 Z can keep up with it while using the extenders is pretty remarkable!
p.1 #7 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
stanj wrote:
I find the 70-200Z with 2xTC to be absolutely indistinguishable from the 100-500. Never tried it against the 100-400 (assuming EF L mk2; I do have the RF100-400 and that's no comparison). If I think I need primarily a 70-200/2.8 and also may need a 400, that's what I take, instead of the 100-500. If I think I need a 500, I take that.
Sorry my English is not so good...
I have R5II and RF 70 200 2.8 and RF 100 500 and I'm thinking about selling both lenses to get the z version for the internal AF. Could you just tell which camera do you have ?
p.1 #8 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Bedon wrote:
Sorry my English is not so good...
I have R5II and RF 70 200 2.8 and RF 100 500 and I'm thinking about selling both lenses to get the z version for the internal AF. Could you just tell which camera do you have ?
Thank you in advance !
I currently shoot with an R5m2 and R1, mostly the R5m2 - the R1 is a one-trick pony with the RF400 for owls.
I think your plan of consolidation is sound, for the vast majority of applications.
p.1 #9 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
I have never been one for using extenders with zoom lenses. But the 1.4x is of course a natural fit on my RF 100-300 f/2.8.
Even still, somehow I never considered the idea that a 2x extender on a 70-200 could get close to a bare 100-400 or 100-500. But after watching Gordon's video, the 70-200 Z with the RF extenders is amazing. (Though I do feel that something is off with his copy of the RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS.)
I do have the 24-105 Z, which I find to be breathtaking, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised by this, haha.
p.1 #10 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
garyvot wrote:
(Though I do feel that something is off with his copy of the RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS.).
I haven't watched the video, but it's possible. Back some time ago IIRC there was a firmware fix for the RF 70-200/2.8 (non-Z) to address a slight focus error. I also had a bad experience with a copy of that lens from CPS that exhibited inconsistent focus that was 75% of the time slightly off. But other copies were great.
I'm currently waiting on delivery of a 70-200Z in black (apparently harder to get up here) that I'll use with the 1.4x TC as a 'poor man's' 100-300 f/4 equivalent for certain sports and events. I've never been a fan of 2x TCs, but seems like the downside with this lens isn't significant, so we'll see....
p.1 #11 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
rscheffler wrote:
I haven't watched the video, but it's possible.
What shows up in his video is poor corner sharpness, which he attributes to curvature of field. But his subject is distant, where this should be less of a factor I think. Also, I haven't really noticed this in my copy, and the test results at TDP.com do not really show much softening in the corners (at least not to the degree that his copy seems to exhibit).
rscheffler wrote:
I'm currently waiting on delivery of a 70-200Z in black (apparently harder to get up here) that I'll use with the 1.4x TC as a 'poor man's' 100-300 f/4 equivalent for certain sports and events.
Lucky you.
For what it's worth, I have never really liked the use of the Canon white on the shorter telephoto zooms. I was once a fanboy of the original Magic Drainpipe, and I swore that if Canon ever made a 70-200 in black it would be an instant buy for me, haha.
Now that it's here though, I'm on the fence because I do value the compactness of the OG lens. Plus, I still have my excellent EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II if I need an internal focusing fix.
Too damn many good choices these days.
Canon now just has to offer the extenders in black.
p.1 #12 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
garyvot wrote:
What shows up in his video is poor corner sharpness, which he attributes to curvature of field. But his subject is distant, where this should be less of a factor I think. Also, I haven't really noticed this in my copy, and the test results at TDP.com do not really show much softening in the corners (at least not to the degree that his copy seems to exhibit).
Lucky you.
For what it's worth, I have never really liked the use of the Canon white on the shorter telephoto zooms. I was once a fanboy of the original Magic Drainpipe, and I swore that if Canon ever made a 70-200 in black it would be an instant buy for me, haha.
Now that it's here though, I'm on the fence because I do value the compactness of the OG lens. Plus, I still have my excellent EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II if I need an internal focusing fix.
Too damn many good choices these days.
Canon now just has to offer the extenders in black. ...Show more →
OK. Thinking back (it was 2.5 years ago) and that's maybe what I noticed. Just poor across frame sharpness in that copy whereas I hadn't noticed it in other copies I had previously used. I went back to CPS and they didn't have any others for me to compare against but gave me an EF v3, and it was sharp across the frame. But it was so darn large and heavy in comparison, I really disliked using it.
I had the original EF 80-200/2.8 and when I initially saw the 70-200Z in black, it immediately reminded me of it. Given I do a lot of events, I think black will be a little more discreet, especially in darker environments where hopefully it will better blend into the surroundings. I still plan to keep the RF 70-200/4 for when I need something really compact.
Yeah, the white TC is going to be a bit odd, but it can be like an Oreo. Apparently you can get vinyl skins for various lenses and supposedly at least one company also makes them for the TCs, so it might be an option.
p.1 #13 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
I use the 70-200 z with the 2x. An amazing combo. Here is an album of some wildlife with the R1 and 2x.
AF is very snappy. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
I have been saying this for a long time now, that all the RF F2.8 lenses that take extenders work outstanding with the 2x. I would not hesitate to recommend using the combo.
p.1 #14 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
RobAmy wrote:
I use the 70-200 z with the 2x. An amazing combo. Here is an album of some wildlife with the R1 and 2x.
AF is very snappy. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
I have been saying this for a long time now, that all the RF F2.8 lenses that take extenders work outstanding with the 2x. I would not hesitate to recommend using the combo.
p.1 #15 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
RobAmy wrote:
I use the 70-200 z with the 2x. An amazing combo. Here is an album of some wildlife with the R1 and 2x.
AF is very snappy. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
I have been saying this for a long time now, that all the RF F2.8 lenses that take extenders work outstanding with the 2x. I would not hesitate to recommend using the combo.
p.1 #16 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
rscheffler wrote:
Apparently you can get vinyl skins for various lenses and supposedly at least one company also makes them for the TCs, so it might be an option.
p.1 #17 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
RobAmy wrote:
I use the 70-200 z with the 2x. An amazing combo. Here is an album of some wildlife with the R1 and 2x.
AF is very snappy. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
I have been saying this for a long time now, that all the RF F2.8 lenses that take extenders work outstanding with the 2x. I would not hesitate to recommend using the combo.
I'm still hesitating to buy it and sell my RF 70 200 og... Have you already experienced the RF 100 500 which I own and I could replace it with the Z version - 2x RF Extender.
p.1 #18 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Bedon wrote:
I'm still hesitating to buy it and sell my RF 70 200 og... Have you already experienced the RF 100 500 which I own and I could replace it with the Z version - 2x RF Extender.
Thank you so much for your share
Yes I did own the 100-500 for a bit of time. It is a very nice lens but personally I have always hated extending barrels. The only downside with the Z version and the 2x is that you will not have the extra 100mm if that is important, image quality wise they are very close. You already own some nice glass so it makes it harder. You know what photos you want and have taken, so will that one lens fit your needs? I always like the f2.8 option and I tend to always shoot wide open. I sold both my 100-500 and the RF 70-200 for the 100-300mm because of the f2.8 and the non extending barrel. Never looked back. I picked up the Z version more for video and the ability to use extenders for a smaller travel option.
p.1 #20 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Bedon wrote:
I'm still hesitating to buy it and sell my RF 70 200 og... Have you already experienced the RF 100 500 which I own and I could replace it with the Z version - 2x RF Extender.
I own both. I bring the 100-500 when I know that I will need zooming flexibility (5x vs 3x) and likely will be at the long end. I bring the 70-200Z when I think I need the 2.8 and occasionally the long end and don't mind fussing with putting on the TC. On extremely rare occasions I bring both. On even more rare occasions I bring one and not the other and regret not having both
In real terms, I can't distinguish the quality on the current generation of sensors (R5m2) - which may change in the future if the resolution goes higher. The 100-500 has the better IS in my experience.
