Would you buy both…

[aam1234]

The 70-200 L and 100-400 L (assuming you have the budget for them). Or do you think that 100-400 would be enough.

What do you think

Thanks

[tommykjensen]

I already have th 70-200 mm F4L but also want the 100-400 L.

Remember that the 70-200 is faster 2.8 or 4 compared to the 100-400 L which is 4.5 to 5.6

[timmyquest]

Yes, and in fact some day i intend to add the 100-400 along with my 70-200 f/2.8

if your refering about the f/4 70-200 then no i dont see the point.

[aam1234]

Thanks tommykjensen for your reply,

What if the "speed" is not an issue, would you still buy both.

[Sendide]

I would, but it depends on lenses you already have ....
if that's your need, go for it man

[aam1234]

Thanks TQ,

So you think speed is an issue.
To be honest, f2.8, f4 or f5.6 is totally irrelevent to me.

[psk4363]

Yes I would - in fact I have, and yes even if the lenses were of roughly the same speed, you still get the extra 200mm focal length with the 100-400 over the 70-200 (which, on the 10D is effectively an extra 312mm). Ideal for wildlife, etc., shots.

Cheers,
Barry

[Scottes]

I have both. I even have a 1.4TC for the 70-200. Can't beat that f/2.8, or the sharpness of that lens. You also can't beat the range, posrtability, and IS of the 100-400. I would feel better if the larger one were 200-400. :-)

I would not buy the 70-200 f/4 and the 100-400 - maybe that's just me. But if I had the 70-200 f/4 first... I'd still lust after the 100-400.


Man, I wish that Canon made the 400mm Prime with IS. Or f/4. Either one and I'd probably dump the 100-400 and get that. But if they ever manage a 400mm f/4 *and* IS for less than $3000 then I'd just keep them all because that one would be a monster.

[Cadwell]

I have both and I still carry and use both.

[timmyquest]

Thanks TQ,

So you think speed is an issue.
To be honest, f2.8, f4 or f5.6 is totally irrelevent to me.

You havnt used an f/2.8 lens have you :lol: 8)

[tommykjensen]

One thing to keep in mind with the 70-200 and 100-400. The last is bigger and heavier so I would only use the 100-400 when I really need the extra length otherwise I would just use the 70-200.

[aam1234]

Thanks Sendide,

it depends on lenses you already have

That's a good point. Practically, I don't have any lenses except the kit lens(Well I do have old ones, but would like to start getting decent lenses).

[Jon]

I have the 100-400, so since there's no particular size or weight advantage to the 70-200, the only reason for getting it would be for the speed. If I'd gone the other way 'round, yes, I'd get the 100-400 if I had the 70-200, but I might get rid of the 70-200 except for the speed.

[aam1234]

Thank you guys, that was a great help.

Talking about wishes from Canon, I have a couple. 70-200L f4 with IS. And, say, 50-500L or 100-500L.

Thanks again

[Sendide]

70 200 F4 (with IS) !!! this lens is not that heavy and therefore comes with no optional IS, the fast version f2.8 does though.
myu opinion : go for the qeen lens : 70-200 f2.8 L IS , thant with whatever your budget allows with you''ll never regret it.
50mm f1.4 is a serious prime to consider as well
one more think : buying lenses will never stop don't you worry :wink:
regards
Kh

[timmyquest]

70 200 F4 (with IS) !!! this lens is not that heavy and therefore comes with no optional IS, the fast version f2.8 does though

I'd disagree...to me it's more of a marketing thing. Three of the same lenses with three prices. Thats all it boils down to.

I dont htink it would be such a bad idea to put a fourth in the mix.

[Mark Kemp]

We need a 35-105 f2.8 L to nicely fill the gap between the 17-40 and the 100-400.

I have the 17-40, the 28-135 IS and the 100-400. The 28 - 135 is a small compromise on quality and speed but a lot easier to carry than a 24 -70 amd 70-200 and much cheaper too.

[timmyquest]

We need a 35-105 f2.8 L to nicely fill the gap between the 17-40 and the 100-400.

I have the 17-40, the 28-135 IS and the 100-400. The 28 - 135 is a small compromise on quality and speed but a lot easier to carry than a 24 -70 amd 70-200 and much cheaper too.

And how big/heavy and cheap do you expect this 35-105 f/2.8 L be?

I'd love one none the less :-)

[aam1234]

Exactly TQ

There is an extra $1,000 between with & without IS. Sure the one w/ IS is also an f2.8, but still, one grand is a lot of money.

[Mark Kemp]

We need a 35-105 f2.8 L to nicely fill the gap between the 17-40 and the 100-400.

I have the 17-40, the 28-135 IS and the 100-400. The 28 - 135 is a small compromise on quality and speed but a lot easier to carry than a 24 -70 amd 70-200 and much cheaper too.

And how big/heavy and cheap do you expect this 35-105 f/2.8 L be?

I'd love one none the less :-)

Well if cost and weight were about 1.5 times either the 24-70 or the 70-200 it would still be cheaper and easier to carry than the pair.

35 - 105 is not such a stretch its a pretty common sort of zoom range so an L version ought to be 'on the cards' if Canon wanted to try. Of course it would hit sales of two lenses so I don't think its that likely

[RichardtheSane]

The 70-200 L and 100-400 L (assuming you have the budget for them). Or do you think that 100-400 would be enough.

What do you think

Thanks

I have a 100-400L and I am also planning to buy a 70-200 F4 L

I believe the 70-200 AF is better (quicker) and I need that bit extra on the wide end. Plus it is a lighter lens to carry round... i would use the 70-200 as my walkaround lens :)

[Cadwell]

I believe the 70-200 AF is better (quicker)

Richard, I have both and that's not my experience...

I need that bit extra on the wide end. Plus it is a lighter lens to carry round...

True.

[RichardtheSane]

I believe the 70-200 AF is better (quicker)

Richard, I have both and that's not my experience...


Interesting :)

In your opinion how do the two compare?

Thanks

Richard

[Cadwell]

Interesting :)

In your opinion how do the two compare?

Thanks

Richard

In terms of focus speed and accuracy there's really nothing to choose between them.

I prefer the feel of the 100-400 on the 10D with battery grip, particularly for panning shots. The extra weight helps. The IS on the 100-400 is very useful too.

The 70-200 is a great lens to wander about with due to it's light weight. I often carry a 1.4x TC (the Sigma one... it works really well on this lens) in my pocket when I am doing this in case I need a bit of extra length.

The 70-200mm is much less conspicuous. It doesn't happen so much at race tracks, but if I am at other locations and wandering round with the 100-400 on the camera it attracts a lot of notice and that can get tiresome - I don't have that problem with the 70-200.

Image quality on both is pretty much what you would expect from an L.

If I could only carry one, I'd take the 100-400 but since I can take both I will and do.

[RichardtheSane]

Thanks for that Cadwell.

The idea of a less conspicous zoom is very appealing... I hadn't thought of that! I usually have the battery grip on... but I like the idea of a nice zoom that will handle well without the grip too. Like I said.. walkabout lens!

Thanks again :)

[mjordan]

I have all three, the 70-200 4.0L, 70-200 2.8L IS and 100-400 4.5-5.6L and I carry both the 70-200 2.8L and 100-400 with me... as well as the 24-70 2.8L. I put the 70-200 4.0L on my D30 which my wife carries (I have a 10D).

When I'm working in a large area, like the 3 days of Ring Sport I shot last weekend, I will switch back and forth between the 70-200 and 100-400 depending on where on the field the dog and lure are working. I like the 2.8 of the one lens, but I sure like the reach of the 100-400.

Mike

[FrenchAmateur]

I used to have the f:2,8 70-200, the f:4 300 non IS and then IS, and finally the 100-400.
I sold the 70-200 and the 300 after using the 100-400. The optical quality of the 100-400 between 100 and 200 is really excellent.
For me it would be to much weight to carry the 2,8 70-200 and the 100-400 (in addition to other lenses of course...).
The only justification could be in favour of the 2,8, the f:4 being too close in aperture to the 100-400. That's the reason why I bought recently a second hand 2,8 200 mm II, just in case I need some wide open short tele lens... without the weight of the 70-200 2,8...
It's never simple...

[defordphoto]

The 70-200 L and 100-400 L (assuming you have the budget for them). Or do you think that 100-400 would be enough.

What do you think

Thanks

I have both and recommend both. the 70-200 f/2.8 for speed and the 100-400 for reach. Both are awesome glass.

[timmyquest]

The 70-200 L and 100-400 L (assuming you have the budget for them). Or do you think that 100-400 would be enough.

What do you think

Thanks

I have both and recommend both. the 70-200 f/2.8 for speed and the 100-400 for reach. Both are awesome glass.

Thats my idea anyways...down the road that is.

As for the 70-200L being conspicuous. That really depends on where your at i think. When i take it to family functions i get annoyed to hell with all the questions. When i take it to the bears training camp where there are 4 400mm lenses next to me...yeah, no one really notices me.

It is this reason that i want to get something like the 135mm f/2. It's not small by any stretch, but i dont think it's as big as the 200mm WHITE lens.

Every lens has a purpose for each indvidual, ya just gotta figure out whats right for you.

[FrenchAmateur]

The 70-200 L and 100-400 L (assuming you have the budget for them). Or do you think that 100-400 would be enough.

What do you think

Thanks

I have both and recommend both. the 70-200 f/2.8 for speed and the 100-400 for reach. Both are awesome glass.

Thats my idea anyways...down the road that is.

As for the 70-200L being conspicuous. That really depends on where your at i think. When i take it to family functions i get annoyed to hell with all the questions. When i take it to the bears training camp where there are 4 400mm lenses next to me...yeah, no one really notices me.

It is this reason that i want to get something like the 135mm f/2. It's not small by any stretch, but i dont think it's as big as the 200mm WHITE lens.

Every lens has a purpose for each indvidual, ya just gotta figure out whats right for you.

Or the 2,8 200 mm ...

[DocFrankenstein]

IMO if speed isn't an issue, then no. You should not get a 100-400.

I'd go with f/4 and the converters. You still get quality that outresolves the 10D sensor, but it's much more compact and cheaper.

100-400 is way softer than the 70-200 f/4.

But then I never had the 100-400 either. Just read about it.

[Cadwell]

100-400 is way softer than the 70-200 f/4.

But then I never had the 100-400 either. Just read about it.

Where do you get that opinion from? There's no appreciable difference in sharpness between the two lenses. I have both.

[DocFrankenstein]

I don't have the link. Sorry. I think it was an article on either luminous landscape or dp.com which compared them both with the 1Ds body.

100-400 was way softer than the 70-200 f/4. Maybe somebody knows what I'm talking about.

[robertwgross]

Without knowing what kind of photography you do, it is impossible to say anything about lenses.

For example, if you do wildlife photography, then 70-200mm might be good for nearby African elephants, but if you are after small birds, then anything under 400mm will be worthless.

---Bob Gross---

[Phil Hall]

I have both. love the 100-400 for wildlife. The 70-200 2.8 is good for low light, you can also add 1.4x and 2.0x or both..quality falls off. Carrying both is a chore, decide which best suites your needs and go for it.


Phil

[CyberDyneSystems]

I own and carry both.. sometimes. If I am "birding" in bright sunlight the 70-200mm f/2.8 stays home.

Likewise when i am shooting low light in the theatre or elsewhere.. I would not dream of taking along the 100-400mm as it would be a very heavy bit of filler in my kit.

But.. if the aperture is "irrelevant" than two things;

1. No.. you should just get the 100-400mm as the "relevance" of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS THE f/2.8

2. If Aperture is irrelevant.. than you are missing something I'm aftraid.

[DocFrankenstein]

2. If Aperture is irrelevant.. than you are missing something I'm aftraid.
IQ? :twisted:

:wink: :lol: :D

[BearSummer]

Hi Folks,

The information that Doc is talking about is from luminous landscape and was compairing the 70-200 2.8 +2xtc with the 100-400, see the following

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

not surprisingly the 70-200 2.8+2xtc is a touch softer than the 100-400 when both at f5.6, after f8 there is very little between them.

And to answer the original question, When the option is on or the other the correct choice is always both.

All the best

BearSummer

[adamsti]

[/quote]
The 70-200 is a great lens to wander about with due to it's light weight. [/quote]

The f/4L is lighter than the 100-400, but the f/2.8L is basically the same weight. From Canon's specs the 70-200 f/2.8L IS weighs 2.9lbs, the 100-400 weighs 3lbs.

[defordphoto]

100-400 is way softer than the 70-200 f/4.


Absolutely untrue.

[sGu]

i own 70-200mm f2.8 IS, and 100-400mm is on my shopping list, it'll be the next item to buy

[RikWriter]

I would have both if I had the money. I didn't have quite enough money though, so I have the 70-200 f4 and the Sigma 50-500.