Can anyone answer how 70-200 2.8 compares at 100-200mm with-

[Adam Hicks]

the 100-400L at the same aperture setting? Obviously comparing 2.8 isn't possible, but I'm needing a good zoom lens for motorsports, and it seems like the 70-200 2.8 doesn't make sense vs. the 100-400... only losing 30mm on the wide side, and gaining 200mm seems like a no brainer. I don't have a place locally to rent these lenses or I'd do so. I'm planning on ordering from B&H this week.

So my questions are
- Sharpness at like focal lengths and aperture settings - non IS 70-200 2.8 vs. 100-400

- Focus speed comparison (does IS affect focus speed on or off?)

- Weight (about the same?... never mind I'll check B&H for that)

Anyone who can offer opinions is greatly appreciated! I'm looking to pick up my first 'L' lens, and it'll either be the 70-200 2.8 non-IS, the 100-400L or the (if I get crazy) 300mm f4L... more limited use but I'm jonesin' for it!

Thanks in advance!!!
Adam

[Cadwell]

The 100-400L is a fine lens for motorsport as long as there is enough light. I don't have the 70-200 f/2.8, I have the f/4 so I can't do a direct comparison for you between the two lenses you're asking about but it is a very sharp lens at all focal lengths. You are right in that 200mm is often too short.

As to your other questions, IS doesn't affect focus speed as such but you do need to allow about 1/2 sec. for the IS to spin up before shooting.

Weight is fine. It's easy enough to hand hold all day which is why I bought it ;)

As to the 300mm f/4 prime... great lens but unless you have two bodies primes are not great for motorsport. You will miss a lot of shots. Watch the pros trackside; if they are using a prime they nearly always have a second body with a zoom on it in case the action happens somewhere at the wrong distance for the prime.

[Adam Hicks]

Thanks for the info... I was thinking along the lines of the IS giving me an extra stop of aperture (sorta) bringing it back down to the f4 range in the wider focal lengths, and I could certainly shoot ISO400 vs. 100/200 if needed since these shots are for a magazine, and are generally not more than half-page images.

As far as the prime on the other camera goes, I was thinking about keeping the DRebel as a backup to the 20D when it arrives, and using the DRebel as a 'prime' camera, with the 20D using the 100-400L.

I'll have this out at the track next weekend... shooting to try for my first cover shot! (publisher called and said he wanted the Elise on the cover, and that's my project :) )

Thanks again,
Adam

http://golilm.com/Elise/eilseroadblock.jpg

[Cadwell]

Thanks for the info... I was thinking along the lines of the IS giving me an extra stop of aperture (sorta) bringing it back down to the f4 range in the wider focal lengths, and I could certainly shoot ISO400 vs. 100/200 if needed since these shots are for a magazine, and are generally not more than half-page images.


ISO 400 works well enough but IS doesn't really help you much. Sure, IS allows you to reduce shutter speed when handholding by compensating for camera shake. What it doesn't do is slow down that car that's whizzing along the track any... so you end up with a nice steady background and a very blurry car. Perhaps not what you were aiming for.... :lol:

(OK, mode 2 helps a little bit during panning but not much).

[Adam Hicks]

Thanks again for the input... as far as the Lotus up there goes, it's something see all the time, but they just started showing up here in the US...we've been waiting for them for years!

Thanks again,
Adam

[Cadwell]

Thanks again for the input... as far as the Lotus up there goes, it's something see all the time, but they just started showing up here in the US...we've been waiting for them for years!

Thanks again,
Adam

Lucky you... they've gone a bit "soft" over here. Used to be bought by real sports car fans but now they're seen as something to pose in.

[Longwatcher]

I have the IS version of the 70-200/2.8 and the 100-400.

My impression (no facts) is
from 70-200 the 70-200/2.8 IS seems better then the 100-400. adding the 1.4x to the 70-200; from 200-300 is about the same, but I sometimes get better results because of IS and can still autofocus. from 300-400 the 100-400 is always better.

Since you are doing motor sports (AKA objects moving a high-speeds) you don't need IS. so I would say if you need the extra range go with the 100-400 if you can live in the 70-200 range and only occasionally need to go beyond go with the 70-200/2.8 with maybe a 1.4x extender for those occasions. The good part of the extender is you can really reach out when you get the 100-400.

A note on the IS: The IS on the 70-200/2.8 IS is way better then the 100-400 IS, but the 100-400 IS is still very good.

Just my opinion,

[Adam Hicks]

Thanks again for the input... just before I read this I made the call to B&H and ordered the 100-400L, 77mm UV/Haze (just a Canon.. the B+H MRC I usually use get EXPENSIVE when they get this big!) and a silver/gold 22" reflector (been wanting to play with one for outdoor portraits.)

I was really torn between the two lenses, and I understand that IS won't help me with motorsports, but I also have 800 acres of land where I love to shoot photos of birds, etc, AND there's a BIG air show coming up in two weeks that I'm hoping to shoot... so it all pushed me to the 100-400!

Big investment at $1500 after all was said and done, but I think it oughta last me a long time, plus now I'm officially a member of the 'L' club, and I didn't just go 70-200f4 to get there ;)

.... but that's next on my list!

Adam

[Cadwell]

Congratulations, I don't think you'll regret buying the 100-400L.

[karusel]

AND there's a BIG air show coming up in two weeks that I'm hoping to shoot...

A air show of unknown proportions is coming up next weekend pretty close to where I live, which is totally perfect, as I am getting my 100-400 by tuesday. :D

I too was thinking about 70-200 2.8 vs. 100-400. I realized that it's not either one or the other, it's both. Since I can not justify/afford of getting both (very high on my list is the MP-E 65 with twin lite flash - NOT cheap) I decided 100-400 is more versatile and besides, I need a long lens and hate fooling around with TC's. I would still buy a 1.4x for the 100-400 and now I'm thinking why this does not fall in the category of fooling around with TC's. Erm... Yeah.. then I'll have a virtual 560mm lens that would give me about 896 even more virtual mm of focal length. Which is totally cool.

[Rayz]

I use a 1.4xTC with my 100-400 and D60, sometimes. But I'd use it a lot more if the autofocus worked. The D60/10D & 300D will not autofocus at f8. The additional detail gathered with the longer focal length doesn't seem to warrant that extra stuffing around when focussing is fairly critical as a result of the shallow DoF at such long focal lengths.

I'm hoping the 20D will be able to focus as f8. Does anyone know if it does?

[MediaMagic]

my copy of the 70-200 2.8L IS beats my copy of the 100-400L in every photographic category save reach. The 100-400 gives you the double the reach, obviously. The 70-200 is by far a more overall versatile tool.

Both of them seem to be converted from ship anchors with a bit of glass added.

If you need the adjustable reach in daylight shoots though, the 100-400 is the tool for the job. You certainly wouldn't regret having either lens in your bag, unless you were carrying it up a mountain.