Quote Originally Posted by chrispy43


Perhaps you misread what I said. The
one image you posted of a moving subject was on a bright sunny day.
All the other images were taken of subjects that weren't moving at the
time. You validated what I said.


I assume you mean the 70-200 and not "20-200". I am not a wildlife
photographer (I used the 100-400 for sports on an overcast day, the
horror!) but I will head up a local mountain with my 70-200 w/ 2x TC
and see if I can shoot some birds so we can compare apples to apples.
Remember, I did acknowledge the distortion as well as the softness.
Maybe my standards are lower. I guess we shall see.


Throwing the example of the 500mm f/4 in there is moot. 1) it is a
prime 2) it is a longer focal length 3) I was comparing 400mm f/5.6
to 400mm f/5.6.


I did not "misread" anything In fact if you re-read what you typed you you may understand: "it had better be a bright sunny day OR you had better be shooting a still subject". The term OR separates the two, the term AND on the other hand would link the two. Unfortunately for you, you seem to have worded it wrong. Either way, the 70-200/2.8IS with a 2x TC cannot perform on the same level as the 100-400 any day of the week under any circumstance. As for the comparrison issue, you made an attmept to compare a bare 70-200/2.8IS to a 100-400 by saying "The 70-200mm f/2.8 is far more versatile and it's much faster", that is where the 500/4 came in. Two entirely different lenses intended for different uses. You may also want to take a time out and read the OP again. Notice the OP stating the use for the lens--wildlife photography (NOT sports, which the 100-400 does do well outdoors in good light). Since you do not shoot wildlife, and no offense, how are you qualified to make recommendations?