70-200 vs 100-400

[netadmin22]

I know this subject has been discussed before but for me it is a big decision. Apparently, my choice is between the 70-200 IS along with the 1.4X extender when required or the 100-400 IS.

The 100-400 is a bit smaller and cheaper. One consideration is that I can always remove the extender if 400mm is too much but with the 100-400 I am stuck. With my DRebel these lenses are effectively 448mm and 896mm respectively.

I would appreciate any comments.

[scottbergerphoto]

Both are great lenses but with different purposes. The 70-200 f/2.8L is a sharp, fast zoom. The 100-400 is not as fast, not as sharp, but an awesome zoom. I take alot of candid portraits with tight crops. For that I love the 100-400. Check some out at: http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/faces_in_the_park
If you have to choose one, I would suggest to start with the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS L and add the 1.4 extender II. I think that is more versatile then starting with the 100-400.
Scott

[Longwatcher]

I have both lenses and given my choice, the 70-200/2.8L IS wins hands down.

Unless you need that bit more range a lot of the time.

My reasons:
- The f2.8 of the 70-200 is a big advantage.
- The 70-200 is slightly sharper then the 100-400
- The 70-200 is a newer design
- The autofocus will work with either Canon extender as opposed to 100-400 not working with either.
- The twist zoom is a bit easier to use then the push-pull zoom of the 100-400.
- The IS is better on the 70-200, by a lot.

On the flip side, the 100-400 is slightly lighter (not a big plus, but a plus none the less. And from 300-400 the 100-400 will provide better quality then the 70-200 with extenders. Also you can add the extenders to get out to 800mm with the 100-400.

Just my opinion, but I think you would like the 70-200/2.8L IS better if you can only have one. These days I only use my 100-400 when I need the extra range beyond what a 1.4x extender will get my on the 70-200.

[Belmondo]

Although I agree with everything Tim says, one additional comparison warrants discussion:

the 70-200 is just under a 3X zoom.
the 100-400 is 4X

Although this may not be significant to some, it means the the 100-400 has a little over a third more focal range than the 70-200, even with an extender on it. I take a lot of railroad pictures, and my subjects are rarely sitting still. Sometimes, they're a half mile away when I start shooting, and almost 'in my lap' when I stop. That little bit of extra focal range can come in handy.

Tom

[Belmondo]

BTW, I do have both lenses, and if I don't think I'm going to need the extra focal range, I'll grab the 70-200 first every time. So fundamentally, Longwatcher and I agree.

[netadmin22]

Thank you for the response.. Your candid portraits are great! I am impressed.

[netadmin22]

Thanks, Tom, for your insights.

Tell me, why do you grab the 70-200 first assuming you don't think you will need the extra range?

[Belmondo]

netadmin22 wrote:
Thanks, Tom, for your insights.

Tell me, why do you grab the 70-200 first assuming you don't think you will need the extra range?

The two main reasons are picture quality and ease of handling.

There is no question that the 70-200 is a clearer, brighter lens, and the wider aperture is occasionally useful. Also, I've never warmed up to the push/pull zoom. If I know I'm going to be shooting at 400mm, I have a 400 f/5.6L prime for that, and that lens is amazingly sharp.

A more revealing question might be, "Which lens would you be willing to give up first, the 70-200 or the 100-400?" And to be honest, I'm not sure. Probably, I'd have to let the 100-400 go and keep the 70-200. Why? For all the reasons that Tim outlined. Ultimately, when we're spending this kind of money for lenses, picture quality has to be one of the primary considerations.

The funny things is, you can go either way and not be horribly hindered by your choice. There really are tradeoffs.

Tom

[CyberDyneSystems]

netadmin22 wrote:
I know this subject has been discussed before but for me it is a big decision. Apparently, my choice is between the 70-200 IS along with the 1.4X extender when required or the 100-400 IS.

The 100-400 is a bit smaller and cheaper. One consideration is that I can always remove the extender if 400mm is too much but with the 100-400 I am stuck. With my DRebel these lenses are effectively 448mm and 896mm respectively.

I would appreciate any comments.

On the whole I would agree with the sentiments above,..

BUT,.. do you have a specific purpose/purposes intended.??

For general all around use the 70-200mm may be more appropriate,. but if you intend to outdoors at long ranges as the primary use of the lens,. like wildlife or outdoor sports etc... then go straight to the 100-400mm

:)

[netadmin22]

Well, I should have specified my intended uses for the lens. I primarily will be photographing wildlife. Sometimes from a blind where the distance is relatively short but light is lacking.

About once a year I make a trip to one of the western national parks where most of the "pros" are carrying 500mm lenses. However, while some of the shots are really long, many are closer, and of course, there are the wildflowers, etc.

When needed, I could add a 1.4X extender to the 70-200 which I believe would be enough. Then, of course, there is the 2X extender.

[Jim_T]

I don't see that much difference between the wide ends of each lens.. Effectively, 100mm isn't a WHOLE lot more than 70mm. This wouldn't be a big concern with me. When I twist on a telephoto lens, I'm expecting to shoot far.

The 70-200L wins absolutely hands down if you're shooting action in low light. (ie. sports in a dimly lit arena). An aperture of f2.8 lets in so much more light compared to the f4.5 that the 100-400L provides at 200mm.

I settled on the 100-400L.. I like to shoot a lot of wildlife and I find 200 just isn't enough. All my shooting is during the day, so lens speed isn't a big issue. Looking at the EXIF data on most of my shots, I see I'm almost always shooting over 300mm

You can add a 1.4x or 2x TC to the 70-200 to give you up to 400.. But you can add the same to the 100-400 to give you 800mm.. (Yes I know you lose autofocus but you do have 800mm ).

I guess it boils down to the type of shooting one does.. Speed or focal length.. In my case I needed focal length..

[defordphoto]

John - you will not be disappointed. I (also) have both lenses and they both have very different uses. The 70-200 does not replace the 100-400, even with the 1.4 and certainly not with the 2.0 (gets bad ratings in most cases).

FramerPDX and I recently went to a motorcross for a photo-op and I wished I have brought my D60 so I could shoot with both the 100-400 and 70-200 both slung around my neck. And many times from the same position just for a different feel of what I was going for.

But instead, I just brought the 10D and had to keep switching lenses. What a pain...

Anyway, you'll have fun with that 100-400. Get the extra warranty on it though.

[KBMphotography.com]

I recently purchased the 70-200mm and it seems excellent to me - having only borrowed the 100-400 before.

Should I get the x2.0 or x1.4 TC???

Alan

[defordphoto]

1.4. I would not bother with the 2.0.

[Longwatcher]

KBMphotography.com wrote:
I recently purchased the 70-200mm and it seems excellent to me - having only borrowed the 100-400 before.

Should I get the x2.0 or x1.4 TC???

Alan

Get the 1.4x II, the 2x II significantly degrades the picture. The 1.4x has minor effects compared to the 2x.

I would recommend using a 100-400 over the 70-200 with a 2x any day, that is how bad it degrades. On the flip side, if you are already at 400 and need more then a 1.4x can give you, then the 2x will work and cost significantly less then a prime to get you out there. Although the prime would be even better.

[scottbergerphoto]

This picture was taken with the 100-400 IS L with the 2x Extender II:

http://www.pbase.com/image/23527173.jpg

Happy Holidays!
Scott

[KBMphotography.com]

Thanks for the thoughts........ sorry to hijack the thread!

[Longwatcher]

Scott,
Unless it was an exceptionally bright sunny day out, maybe I need to get a different 2x II extender. That picture is way better then I usually get with mine, even on my 70-200.

[scottbergerphoto]

Longwatcher wrote:
Scott,
Unless it was an exceptionally bright sunny day out, maybe I need to get a different 2x II extender. That picture is way better then I usually get with mine, even on my 70-200.

It was a very bright sunny day, manual focus, alot of perseverence, and another 30+ shots in the recycle bin! The 2X extender is pretty tough to use. You lose light and some clarity in the viewfinder.
Scott

[Longwatcher]

I feel better now, In bright sunlight even I can get good pictures thru the 2x extender :)

Especially after 30 shots. Heck my Tamron piece of crap 28-80 can take good pictures in bright sunlight. Enough light and almost any lens can take good pictures. It is the tough situations that show the good lenses.

I had been worried that I had actually gotten unlucky on a Canon Lens accessory. So far all of my Canon gear has not had any problems that were beyond normal. In fact if not for the 28-135 IS repairs (which I believe to be caused by extended summer beach use and rough travel carriage), so far I have had great Canon equipment. My camera focused properly, my 75-300 IS lens was sharp, My S9000 works with Kodak paper. So when I saw your picture I was worried I had finally gotten a bad piece of Canon gear.

Luckily my fears were unfounded.

[netadmin22]

Thanks for the posts...... I have learned a lot in this forum. You said that you owned the 70-200 IS as well as the 100-400 IS. In a later post you mentioned owning a 75-300 IS. My question is: How do you feel about the 75-300? How does it compare to the 70-200 IS?

Thanks.

[scottbergerphoto]

Longwatcher wrote:
I feel better now, In bright sunlight even I can get good pictures thru the 2x extender :)

Especially after 30 shots. Heck my Tamron piece of crap 28-80 can take good pictures in bright sunlight. Enough light and almost any lens can take good pictures. It is the tough situations that show the good lenses.

I had been worried that I had actually gotten unlucky on a Canon Lens accessory. So far all of my Canon gear has not had any problems that were beyond normal. In fact if not for the 28-135 IS repairs (which I believe to be caused by extended summer beach use and rough travel carriage), so far I have had great Canon equipment. My camera focused properly, my 75-300 IS lens was sharp, My S9000 works with Kodak paper. So when I saw your picture I was worried I had finally gotten a bad piece of Canon gear.

Luckily my fears were unfounded.



Gee Tim,
I was feeling pretty proud of myself until you said that. :)
SeeYa,
Scott