70-200 2.8L w 2x vs. 100-400L?

[Tapeman]

I have the 70-200 2.8L & 2x (Canon). Is there anything to be gained by getting the 100-400L? Maybe I should get the 1.4x as well for the extra stop? Saving my pennies for the 1D replacement. So many toys - so little money.

[Scottes]

I've got the 70-200 2.8 and I'm getting the 100-400 Real Soon.

With a TC on the 70-200 you lose all but the center focus point. The image isn't as crisp as the 100-400. And the 100-400 has IS.

But if you're happy with the 2x on your lens, then the answer is no.

[Tapeman]

At f5.6 on the 100-400 what other focus points can you use?

[defordphoto]

Anytime you use a TC you are compromising. It shows in the photos. You will get some great shots using that combination, but they will never achieve the quality of the 100-400L. Sometimes the difference is very little and I have not seen a comparison done with this combination, so how much clarity is lost would be a guess at this point.

However, I have both the 70-200L f2.8 IS and the 100-400L IS and they perform two different jobs. It is worth having both lenses in your bag, but most might go with the 70-200 and then maybe a 400 prime.

However, in what I shoot, zooms fit my style better than primes. And I can't afford to hang $5000 worth of cameras around my neck with its own respective lens attached.

[ilya]

Try this review. It made me decide to get the 70-200 IS because that's my range most of the time. If I need to go to 400, a 2x will get me there, with comparable sharpness if stopped down at F8 or more

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

[defordphoto]

Try this review. It made me decide to get the 70-200 IS because that's my range most of the time. If I need to go to 400, a 2x will get me there, with comparable sharpness if stopped down at F8 or more

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

Great find there Ilya and that is about what I expected. The 70-200 at f11 is acceptable though the 100-400 finds a significant amount of sharpness at the same f-stop. You can also make up some of that with some USM too. For a $200 upgrade to go to 400mm I think is a great deal!

[Tapeman]

After looking at that comparison, I think when I have the money I'll buy the 400 prime lense. Thanks for the input & info.

[Scottes]

At f5.6 on the 100-400 what other focus points can you use?

On the 100-400 all focus points are usable. Same with the prime.

After looking at that comparison, I think when I have the money I'll buy the 400 prime lense.

Don't forget that the 100-400 has IS. Yes, it costs another $300. But for low-light and many sports, the IS is quite nice.

The prime will be sharper at 400 than the zoom, but I'm not sure how much sharper. Will it make a difference on a 4x6 print? Not much. But it will make a difference at 12x18? Hell yes.

The zoom is 2.7" shorter, but 3 ounces heavier. The zoom focuses at 5.9', the prime at 11.5'. The prime is 1:8.3, the zoom is 1:5. For me - hunting butterflies and dragonflies - those are some big differences. For early-morning and dusk wildlife, the IS is huge.

Saving my pennies for the 1D replacement.

Just remember that the 400 is effectively a 640 on the 10D - on the 1D it's a 400 again.


You're not going to go wrong with the prime, and I'm not trying to talk you into the zoom - I'm just showing you what works for me. Why do *you* want a 400?

[defordphoto]

Just remember that the 400 is effectively a 640 on the 10D - on the 1D it's a 400 again.

The 1D is a 1.3. The 400 would be effectively be 520mm.

[Scottes]

The 1D is a 1.3. The 400 would be effectively be 520mm.

Thanks for the correction. I was actually on my way to double-check that.

[Tapeman]

I like to shoot birds & wildlife, much of it from my back yard.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The Prime is a great choice for birds! It's lack of IS is a bummer but no doubt that is part of why the lens is so affordable. The AF on the 400mm f/5.6 is VERY fast.. and it is a superb lens. (and very lightweight for a telephoto prime)

[Scottes]

Birds, yeah, save the bucks and get the prime. Wildlife may be low-light in comparison - might want the IS. But backyard wildlife implies a nice blind situation, known distances for pre-focusing, and a place for a tripod. All this almost negates the need for IS - well, it does for the time you're in the backyard.

Sounds to me like you're prime for the prime.