70-200L IS vs 100-400L Lens

[MarkH]

I have read a bunch of reviews on both these lenses and I was wanting a little more opinion on them.

If the 100-400L had the newer IS and constant f4 and twist zoom, then that would definately be the lens that I would be saving for.

I am thinking of getting the 70-200L IS instead though, and adding the 2x teleconverter and probably also a 1.4x teleconverter.

My reasoning:
70-200L IS has f2.8 throughout the zoom range, twist zoom, the newer IS that can give 3 stops instead of 2.
With 1.4x teleconverter I would get 98-280 with constant f4.
With 2x teleconverter I would get 140-400 with constant f5.6.

So with the 2x converter I lose a little aperture and wide angle compared to the 100-400, but get the same max zoom at the same aperture at the long end. If I don't need the full zoom, I can remove the 2x and get a beautiful f2.8 IS performance on the lens.

Of course if money was no object I would just buy both.

Has anyone got both lenses? Thoughts?

[Greg M]

I had both lenses up until this week. I sold the 100-400L IS. I never did a direct comparrison between the two. I sold the 100-400L IS based on the fact that after I bought the 70-200L IS I never used the 400. I'm going to get at least a 1.4x and maybe a 2x to use with the 200. You can get use to the push/pull but the zoom of the 70-200L IS is soooo much nicer and easier when you are following action and have to constantly zoom in and out.

I'd get the 70-200L IS and forget about the 100-400L IS but that's because the 2.8 is a lot more useful for me.

[traveler]

I really try NOT to compare these two lenses as they truly are for DIFFERENT purposes for the most part. The 100-400L is a great LONG reach lens for a low price that delivers L quality images. The 70-200 2.8L IS Is without a doubt sharper, faster and more geared toward following speed. The 100-400L's forte IMHO is a great versatile mid to long tele for GOOD light operation. I'm not selling mine even though I don't use it much, I love to know it's there if I need it, especially for time like the National Parks when you can't get too close to the wildlife or birds in flight farther away than the 70-200 would capture well.......

[CyberDyneSystems]

One thing to consider,. is that the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is one of the few Zoom lenses that works really well with both of the teleconverters you mention.

Not knowing what the rest of your kit is and thus what holes you need to fill, I would start with the 70-200mm anyway.

With its ability to not only function with the 1.4X and 2X teleconverters,. but to work well with them,. that 70-200mm well be a very flexible tool in your kit.

[MarkH]

I should have mentioned that I currently have:
Canon 10D
Canon 28-135IS
Canon 50 f1.8
Canon 75-300 III

The 75-300 is the lens I bought to give me the longer reach for the money I could spare. I have paid for everything with my credit card and want to pay that off before spending large amounts on the camera.

I would like to add to my setup the 17-40L and replace the 75-300 with an image stabalised L series lens.

Since I already have 28-135 the 100-400 range would be a good one to cover when I replace the 75-300 with L glass. If they release a new 100-400 with twist zoom and constant f4 and newer IS before I purchase, then I'll probably get that (or even a 100=300L or 150-400L if they don't want to do it in 4x zoom).

These lenses are really expensive, I need to be getting something that is exactly what I want when I spend that much.

[CyberDyneSystems]

A 100-400 f/4 would be a VERY large lens... Look at the 400mm f/4 DO Prime! I can't imagine it would be much smaller than that, and it is big.

Plus I'm not sure it makes sense to wait for lenses that haven't been announced.

Ideally you will own both some day,. but it sounds like you are edging more towards the 100-400 range. If you buy it,. the resail value is very high on them,.. (trust me I check E-bay all the time and they are allways out of my pricerange)

[MarkH]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
A 100-400 f/4 would be a VERY large lens... Look at the 400mm f/4 DO Prime! I can't imagine it would be much smaller than that, and it is big.

Plus I'm not sure it makes sense to wait for lenses that haven't been announced.

Ideally you will own both some day,. but it sounds like you are edging more towards the 100-400 range. If you buy it,. the resail value is very high on them,.. (trust me I check E-bay all the time and they are allways out of my pricerange)

I'd settle for an updated 100-400 with twist zoom and newer IS. But I'm not waiting for it to be released, I'm waiting for my money to build up.

I'm actually leaning towards the 70-200 IS + teleconverter. But if Canon update the 100-400 before I have enough money to buy, I might change my mind.

[pcho]

I have the 70-200 IS and 1.4x

Here is a sample:

http://h00045adf0ca4.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/CRW_6586%20c1.jpg

[ultimateimagery]

I just purchased the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG DF EX Aspherical for my new 10D. So far I haven't had any issues with it but I read that others had problems with another Sigma lens causing the camera to basically freeze. I hope I don't see this problem, and I'm not sure if this is an issue for their entire line, or just one specific case. I was thinking that the 70-200 would be my next investment.

[Jeppe]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
One thing to consider,. is that the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is one of the few Zoom lenses that works really well with both of the teleconverters you mention...


The EF 70-200/4L with an EF 1.4x isn't too shabby either.

Full size, no crop.
Focal length: 252 mm
Shutter 1/400
Aperture: f8
ISO 200
Full frame here (http://www.naturfotografen.net/10D/25full.jpg). 1.5 MB
http://www.fotosidan.se/obj/photo/m_3f1b037208688.jpg