Why own a 70-200 IS when you have a 100-400 IS

[arkturas]

Folks, is there any point in owning an EF 70-200 f2.8 IS if you own an EF 100-400 F4.5 - F5.6 ???? - Don’t get me wrong I love my 70-200 IS but I don’t think I will use it anymore. - I've just come back from South Africa and well I never used it...

So is there any relevance in keeping it or should I sell it and get a 24-105 F4 instead... and then use what’s left to payback what I owe on the other lenses...
What do you people think? if you own a 70-200 and a 100-400 do you still use your 70-200...

[Rhinotherunt]

Heck ya! The wider aperture. Wider mm. They are two different tools.

[ed rader]

Folks, is there any point in owning an EF 70-200 f2.8 IS if you own an EF 100-400 F4.5 - F5.6 ???? - Don’t get me wrong I love my 70-200 IS but I don’t think I will use it anymore. - I've just come back from South Africa and well I never used it...

So is there any relevance in keeping it or should I sell it and get a 24-105 F4 instead... and then use what’s left to payback what I owe on the other lenses...
What do you people think? if you own a 70-200 and a 100-400 do you still use your 70-200...


if you don't use it, sell it. for me 70-200 is an essential lens.

ed rader

[arkturas]

I could sell the 70-200 f2.8 IS and buy a 24-105 and a 350D as a second camera, or I could use the money to buy a 5D (from Hong Kong)

[EOS_JD]

Ditto the above. 2 different lenses for different uses.
The 70-200 is 1-2 stops faster as well as being razor sharp. The 100-400 is also very sharp but needs more light and is used for a wider variety of telephoto uses.

[Lightstream]

100-400 is the 'long reach' zoom. 70-200 is useful when you need the large aperture for maximum shutter speed or DOF control. It's primarily used by action shooters.

I keep an affordable Sigma 70-200 around for action, and use my other glass for the extended reach. If you do not shoot a lot of action or portraits using this lens, you could concievably do without it. Nothing wrong with that :)

[Pete]

100-400 - long reach
70-200 f/2.8 - greah bokeh

But then I sold my 70-200 when I got my 100-400 as I felt I wouldn't use it (and haven't had a use for it since). I do miss the bokeh though - the f/4 just isn't lush enough...

[Billginthekeys]

the 70-200 is a sports shooter essential. if you dont need the 2.8, and are pleased with your results from the 100-400 for what you shoot. then go ahead and sell it. no use keeping something you dont use when there is something out there you would benifit from more.

[Jon]

I had the 100-400 when I got the 70-200 IS. They're two distinctly different lenses for two distinctly different environments. I wouldn't part with either one. But there aren't a lot of times I'd take 'em both along with me.

[malla1962]

I sold my 100-400 and kept my 70-200f2.8Lis:D

[Double Negative]

f/2.8 and weathersealing? Newer IS?

[cjd]

I just added a 2x TC to my 70-200... :) As fast as the 100-400 at 400... less stuff to carry. I also rarely need a lens that long.

[JaGWiRE]

Maybe consider replacing it with primes (85 1.8, 135 f2.0L, 200 f2.8), that way you'de have very very quick lenses covering that focal length and would have a lens to take advantage of when in a low lighting situation needing those focal lengths, or whatever the case may be.

[Jon]

IQ with a 2x TC is almost invariably noticeably less than IQ of a native lens design. If you need 400, you should get 400. Only if it's a rarely-used length or the alternative just isn't available is a TC an advisable option. I did take the 70-200 and TCs to Greece, but that's because I knew my long work was going to be 90% 200 or under. As OP wants to shoot birds, and as I shoot air sdhows, the 70-200 and TC is an inferior choice to the 100-400. The 70-200 IS + 2xTC will also cost more than the (slightly lighter) 100-400 IS. The 70-200 non-IS options will cost less, but require higher shutter speeds.

[Permagrin]

We used to own both. Sold the 70-200 f/2.8 because of the duplicate in range. Am I sorry? Yes and no. I miss the speed something awful! But I don't miss the range. It's duplicated in so many of my other lenses...if you find you are lacking in range in another area, you might sell it and buy something to fill up that gap. But if you prefer speed w/IS, there'll be times when you'll miss the 2.8.

[Permagrin]

IQ with a 2x TC is almost invariably noticeably less than IQ of a native lens design. If you need 400, you should get 400. Only if it's a rarely-used length or the alternative just isn't available is a TC an advisable option. I did take the 70-200 and TCs to Greece, but that's because I knew my long work was going to be 90% 200 or under. As OP wants to shoot birds, and as I shoot air sdhows, the 70-200 and TC is an inferior choice to the 100-400. The 70-200 IS + 2xTC will also cost more than the (slightly lighter) 100-400 IS. The 70-200 non-IS options will cost less, but require higher shutter speeds.

This is SO true! We took the 100-400 out last weekend and the 200 f/2.8 w/a 2x TC to compare the shots. Invariably, even though my steady handed husband was using the 2.8 w/tc combo, the 100-400 shots were sharper.

[Jon]

This is SO true! We took the 100-400 out last weekend and the 200 f/2.8 w/a 2x TC to compare the shots. Invariably, even though my steady handed husband was using the 2.8 w/tc combo, the 100-400 shots were sharper.
And that, folks, was the 100-400 zoom against the 200 prime, which should have a sharpness advantage.

[arkturas]

Thanks Folks, its a lot to contemplate - and wisdom comes with time, I've only been into photography for about a year and half now. I just dont want to sell it if I know I will need it in the future, but then again whats the point of keeping a £1400.00 white elephant - if all I tend to use is the 100-400 f4.5 - on top of that I will miss the ergonomics and most of all the image quality its very, very sharp.

[Permagrin]

And that, folks, was the 100-400 zoom against the 200 prime, which should have a sharpness advantage.

Minus the TC, the 200 f/2.8 is one of sharpest lenses (the 135 f/2 is probably the only one sharper) in our kits, that's why we were testing the comparisons.

Thanks Folks, its a lot to contemplate - and wisdom comes with time, I've only been into photography for about a year and half now. I just dont want to sell it if I know I will need it in the future, but then again whats the point of keeping a £1400.00 white elephant - if all I tend to use is the 100-400 f4.5 - on top of that I will miss the ergonomics and most of all the image quality its very, very sharp.

You know, arkturas, I have the 17-40, the 24-105 and the 100-400L in my kit (along with some others). Those three lenses get used the most by me. I'm a landscape and large animal shooter...the 24-105 is almost always on my 5D and the 100-400 is almost always on the 30D. Only when I'm shooting for effect or need a wide angle, do I switch out the 24-105 for the 17-40...(the others in my kit are used specifically for portraits or macros). Anyway, that's a very nice setup...but it's not built for speed...(another reason I keep some fast primes in my personal kit...).

[Lightstream]

Am tempting me to buy 100-400 again :D

[cjd]

As OP wants to shoot birds, and as I shoot air sdhows, the 70-200 and TC is an inferior choice to the 100-400.

Agreed 100%

95% of my work is <50mm

I was mostly commenting because I don't think this is a cut and dry answer, ever. So, just perspective wrangling.

C

[rklepper]

if you need the f/2.8 you will miss it. although, with my 200 I could sell the 70-200 and never miss it.

[Permagrin]

That's how we felt, Doc. (unless of course we both want a fast 200 at the same time ;) ).

[joe445]

I sold my 100-400 and kept my 70-200f2.8Lis:D

I did the same thing!

[LightRules]

Folks, is there any point in owning an EF 70-200 f2.8 IS if you own an EF 100-400 F4.5 - F5.6 ????...What do you people think? if you own a 70-200 and a 100-400 do you still use your 70-200

The 7-2IS is an amazing lens, but it's no match for the 1-4IS beyond 200mm (with 1.4x or 2x). Just as some others have said here, 2 different lenses for different uses. Here they are at 400mm f5.6:

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/53297349/original

[Gouba]

People say you will miss it, but if you dont use it then how can you miss it?

Realistically its a big chunk of money thats doing nothing, you said you have loans, they ahve interest on them (making an assumption here) sell the lense and pay back the loan. The value of a piece of glass will only decrease. It makes finicial sense to sell it if you dont use it.

[Woolburr]

You can't beat the 70-200 for many purposes....it is probably my favorite lens. People can say what they want...but the 70-200 performs quite well with both a 1.4 and 2x TC....but only if you are taking photographs and not wasting the day away shooting batteries. If you find you aren't using the lens...by all means...sell it to someone that will get some use out of it.

[Pete]

Sell the 70-200 and get the 24-105 like I did. You'll miss the bokeh and low light excellence, but you can get that back (kinda) with high iso and some gaussian blur in photoshop.

The 24-105 is a fine fine lens.

[calicokat]

I use my 70-200 for football games, I need the F/2.8 due to low light and the need for fast shutter speeds. My 100-400L is my wildlife, flower and nature lens.

[grego]

201-400mm, the 100-400 to win, but if you are going to shoot anything under, then the 70-200 is a better choice. Way better running around lens for photo journalism and good to pair with a 300mm or 400mm, for sports.

[fstop11.net]

Image quality ?
Faster aperture
greater bokeh
probably has a better IS motor


Here is how my kit is going to unfold over the next year

EFs 10 - 22
15mm F2.8 fisheye
17 - 40 L (Already own it)
50mm F1.4
24 - 70 L F2.8
105mm F2.8 macro (already own it)
70 - 200 F2.8 IS
85mm F1.2 L
100 - 400 L IS (already own it)
300mm F2.8 L IS

Thats how my kit will look once im mainly finished and they gives me full coverage

[arkturas]

That’s an awful lot of equipment to lug around..... I hope your partner doesn’t mind having to lug the extra weight around. It’s a good all round range - especially the 300 f2.8

[fstop11.net]

Thats just what I want. what I carry around is down to pre made decision

[Marloon]

bump

[DreDaze]

bump


why would you just bump a 2 1/2 year old thread...you must be looking for answers to something...how about posting what your question is?

[investorguy]

One thing that no one has said is that the 7-2 can be used as a good portrait lense.

I know that every time Scott Kelby posts a video of himself doing portraits, he's sporting his nikon 70-200.

Not gonna happen w/ the 1-4.

[KenjiS]

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is sharper in the overlapping focal range than the 100-400, but the 100-400 has a bigger range and is lighter..

Both have uses, and both will have a place in my system, I can see how nice a 70-200 f/2.8 IS would be to have when i need speed and not length...