Jump to content

70-200mm f/2.8 (w/ 2x teleconverter) or 100-400mm f4.5-5.6??


TDoodle
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

Sorry if this has been posted before, but after a quick search I didn't see much. But I just signed up, need some input. A little background info....I like to shoot landscapes, auroras, and trophy catches (fish and hunting...not actual trophies) and for that I have the 16-35 f2.8. I am now wanting to get into wildlife shots. I am not planning on purchasing a new lens for a few more months though, so I want to make sure I have done my research. 

Should I look at getting the 70-200 f/2.8 (with the 2x teleconverter) or the 100-400 f4.5-5.6?  How many stops would I lose with the 70-200 using the 2x? I don't like shooting live photos (i.e. portraits, weddings etc), but I feel like I could get some use out of the 70-200 without the 2x. How fast is the autofocus by using the 2x if I wanted to (for example) shoot a bird taking off of a tree for flight?

What are the pros and cons for each?

Thanks a bunch...By the way, I don't know how I didn't know about this forum a few months ago when I purchased my camera. But I think you guys will see a lot of me around here (whether I'm lurking, posting questions, comments, or some recent photos I just took)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have both the 70-200mm G Master and the 100-400 G Master, and the 2x teleconverter, and I've shot both lenses with the 2x teleconverter in the Amazon two times and in the Galapagos once.  You indicated that you want to get into wildlife photography.  Then, you should get the 100-400 G Master (or the 400mm f/2.8 GM if you can afford it).   The 70-200 is too short for wildlife photography.  Plus, the trade offs when using a 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter aren't worth it.   In general, your wildlife subjects won't be standing still; they'll be moving, and oftentimes, you'll be dealing with low light scenarios.  All of which means, a higher likelihood of auto focus issues and a higher likelihood of noisier, grainier shots with a 2x teleconverter.  You should check out the reviews on the 100-400 G Master.  It's an incredibly sharp lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cvanmarter said:

All of which means, a higher likelihood of auto focus issues and a higher likelihood of noisier, grainier shots with a 2x teleconverter.  You should check out the reviews on the 100-400 G Master.  It's an incredibly sharp lens.

I have "only" the 100-400 G Master plus the 2x teleconverter. I can confirm, that you _can_  get incredibly sharp pictures, even at 800mm. However, the depth of field at that focal length gets really thin, and in my experience the autofocus can by far not compete with perfect manual focussing. To exhaust the maximum sharpness this lens - teleconverter combo can deliver, I once tethered my a9 to my 27" iMac, to have a huge monitor for focus control. Then it still takes a solid tripod and a rock-steady hand at manual focussing, to achieve the maximum sharpness. Even the tiniest twists on the manual focus ring do have a decisive effect. Something which obviously can't be done when shooting wildlife.

Also be aware, that you will loose a full stop with the 2x teleconverter (maximum aperture will decrease from 5.6@400mm to 11.0@800mm), and you may have to decrease the shutter-speed to a maximum of 1/3000 or faster, to avoid motion-blur (the reciprocal of 4x focal length), depending on the speed of movement of your target. Which will inevitably result in much higher ISO and the graininess cvanmarter mentioned.

This is (in my view) a pretty comprehensive article on how to get the best out of telephoto shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I've got the 70-200 2.8 and the 2x converter.    You lose 2 stops with the converter.    I have mainly been shooting sports so fast moving and sometimes long distances.    What I've found is if I'm outside with good light (during the day not under lights at night)  I use the 2x converter and have no problems getting sharp clear pictures.  Even at the 400mm.   I can be stopped below 6 if needed and can keep my shutter speed fast enough to stop the fastest movements of human sports.   My assumption is you will find the same results with shooting wildlife.   I think a big portion of your question will be answered in what time of day you are shooting, because of the amount of light present. 

Once in side in poor lighting I have to remove the 2x converter.  Losing the 2 stops makes it to dark and I've found It's better to crop then it is to fill the frame with underexposed pictures or slower shutter speeds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2018 at 10:50 AM, TDoodle said:

Hey guys,

Sorry if this has been posted before, but after a quick search I didn't see much. But I just signed up, need some input. A little background info....I like to shoot landscapes, auroras, and trophy catches (fish and hunting...not actual trophies) and for that I have the 16-35 f2.8. I am now wanting to get into wildlife shots. I am not planning on purchasing a new lens for a few more months though, so I want to make sure I have done my research. 

Should I look at getting the 70-200 f/2.8 (with the 2x teleconverter) or the 100-400 f4.5-5.6?  How many stops would I lose with the 70-200 using the 2x? I don't like shooting live photos (i.e. portraits, weddings etc), but I feel like I could get some use out of the 70-200 without the 2x. How fast is the autofocus by using the 2x if I wanted to (for example) shoot a bird taking off of a tree for flight?

What are the pros and cons for each?

Thanks a bunch...By the way, I don't know how I didn't know about this forum a few months ago when I purchased my camera. But I think you guys will see a lot of me around here (whether I'm lurking, posting questions, comments, or some recent photos I just took)

Hi TDoodle,

Here was my thought process before I purchased the Sony 100-400 GM with 1.4X. I was coming from the 100-400mm w/1.4X on my Fuji X-system so equivalent in FF to a range of 150-840mm. I actually used it in the 600-840mm (FF equivalent) range a fair amount. However in most cases 560mm (400+1.4X) with the Sony is plenty. I don't know what body you're using but in my case, because my A7R III bodies are 42 MP vs 24 MP on the Fuji, if I crop to 24MP I still get to a 700mm equivalent. I sell large prints so maintiaing enough native resolution was an important factor for me.

But everyone's needs and styles of shooting are different so ultimately you have to decide. I know it's hard to anticipate if you are embarking on something that's new for you, like wildlife. Remember that wildlife covers a broad range. If you're in a jeep on a preserve in Africa you might be shooting with a 24-105 and the 70-200 could be too long. On the other hand you'll likely want very long focal lengths for birds. FWIW, my reason for getting a 1.4X is that I only lose one stop of light which is higher priority for me than the slightly greater magnification. My premise is that I'll always lose 2 stops with a 2X but may not be making use of the extra magnification all the time. For the times I need beyond 560mm I'll just crop. You can also set your cam to super 35 and get extra magnification (but a commensurately smaller file too.) If you're not making really big enlargements, this is a viable option.

You might also want to consider renting these lenses first. If it helps you make the right choice, it's well worth it. I've had good experiences with LensRentals.com but there are many places to rent out there.

Important decision- let us know what you decide!

Happy Shooting,

Joel 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a lot of variables in this. Essentially as Joel said, everyone has their own needs and styles.

One reality is that for a lot of wildlife shooting, you need a lot of reach because you just can’t get that close to the wildlife without scaring them off or putting yourself in danger. Often the 100-400 by itself is not enough and you need the 1.4x or 2.x on there (and sometimes more through cropping either on crop sensor or cropping into 42MP image). And one thing to note there is that with the 2.x on the 100-400 fully zoomed in, it’s at f11 and the PDAF on say the A7RIII only works to f8 so you only have contrast AF at that point. However the PDAF on the A9 and A6500 works at f11.

So personally I think if you only have one body and you’re going to be doing wildlife then without question get the 100-400 and also have at least the 1.4x for extra reach.

However, although most of the time you’ll need the reach of the 100-400, as someone else pointed out, sometimes there are situations when the wildlife is unexpectedly a lot closer so having a second body with a 70-200 or 24-105 is really helpful. Another thing to think about is having redundant systems in case of equipment failure or accident. If you are in a remote place or any place where it took a lot of effort to get there and you have unique opportunities to get shots what would you do if a camera failed or you lost the use of the 100-400? One thing is that if you have the 70-200 as well, you can use the 2x and get out to at least 400.

So get the 100-400 first and then also get a second camera with something else, possibly the 70-200 or the 24-105. The latter is awesome and has the benefit you can do the occasional wide landscape shot. However it’s not as versatile as the 70-200 especially since it can’t take the teleconverters.

Edited by 2xbass
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...