100-400 IS, why ?

[mikeg]

Hello there,

This question is for people who already own a 70-200 IS. Why did you get a 100-400 ? It's some kind of overlap, isn't it ?
Why did you get that lens instead of using a 2x extender ?
For me, the purpose of the 200-400mm range will be for race tracks and sometimes local soccer games.

Thanks,


MikeG

[RichardtheSane]

The 100-400 has better image quality at 400mm than the 70-200 + 2x convertor.

Plus it is a lot quicker to zoom from 100mm to 400mm that it is to slap the convertor on the lens when you need 400mm. FOr me if I used the 70-200 + convertor I would probably miss shots.

I currently have the 100-400 and I am buying the 70-200 very soon.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Mike,

I cam e to the 100-400mm IS eventually after quite a time thiunking I had no real use for it. Thus. I think my journey to the 100-400mm IS may be of interest.

I started shooting birding/wildlife and Wildlife with the excellent Sigma 50-500mm Zoom. For me at the time.. the lower cost and extra length made that lens seem a better choice.

Eventually as my wildlife asperations grew. I knew that only a big prime would finally serve my purposes. I got a 500mm prime! As soon as I got the Prime the 50-500mm remained at home. The Prime is big and heavy,. but so is the 50-500mm So there was NEVER a time when I would prefer the Zoom to the Prime.

At this time I also had a 70-200mm f/2.8
This lens I NEEDED for shooting in the theatre I work.

Like you I argued to myself that the 70-200mm with either of the tele-converters can give me all I need from 70mm through to 400mm in a manageable zoom.

I got by with this set-up for about 8 months, and it worked O-kay. I never really used the 70-200mm with the 2X T-con much .. but with the 1.4X often.

Then I held the 100-400mm IS in my hands again recently for the first itme in over a year,. (thanks to "Scottes" )
At the time I think I maintained a rather subdued impression.. but in fact I was very surprised. The lens is so lightweight (compared to either the 50-500mm Sigma or even the 70-200mm /f2.8 IS) that I was amazed.

If I did not have a specific need for a fast f/2.8 zoom lens @ 200mm... I would certainly chose the 100-400mm IS as the one that I would use, if only one were an option.

This is a complete 180* turn around from if you asked me this 6 months ago.. where the very practical seeming solution of a 70-200mm with T-cons made more sense to me.

They are both great lenses,. and the best of both worlds is ownong both!

But.. assuming the Sun is up,. and I am shooting outside.. I will pick the 100-400mm to mount.

Hope this helps.

[Steveo31]

Ya know, I've used this lens once before for about a week, and I loved it. However, at the long end it is f/5.6, which can be a handicap in some conditions. When I had the privelage of using it, I was in Tenessee. For the most part it was cloudy, or at least not 100% sunny. With the IS it was great. Handholding was not a prob.

If the image doesn't show, I apologize. Not sure if the host allows for remote images....

http://www.photosig.com/uploads/7fcee959d38dfbc6.jpg
1/60 @ f/5.6, 400mm handheld.

[cecilc]

The 100-400 has better image quality at 400mm than the 70-200 + 2x convertor.

'Nuff said with that ....

Although I will add that I totally agree with it. I've got both a Canon 80-200 2.8 and the 100-400. Overlap? Yea .... but I'd never use a 2x extender with the 80-200 to get to 400 because the image degradation is just too extreme. The 100-400 is much sharper all by it's lonesome .....

The "handicap" with the 100-400 is the 5.6 max, which means you need quite a bit of light to use it with. But shooting outdoor field sports (soccer, baseball, lacrosse, etc) I've never had a problem using it and I've always enjoyed using it.