Oh no, not another 70-200L IS vs 100-400L IS question!!!

[aikidoforever]

Hello all,

This comparison has come up many times I know and some of you are sick of it :evil: , however, no one has really stated each lenses performance when used with a Digital SLR exclusively. Specifically the crop factor of 1.6X.

As many, I've debated the purchase of these lenses and keep switching back and forth. :? I attempt (want to) all styles of photography including motorsports and wildlife. Speed is crucial for the former style and a good reach for the latter. With the 1.6X crop factor, the above mentioned lenses now become 112-320mm and 160 - 640mm respectively. Would the (now) 112-320mm be sufficient for wildlife? Or, better quesition, is the (now) 160-640mm fast enough for motorsports? (Side note - At least twice per year I venture into "interior" wilderness parks for a week at a time. The fact is that many of the wildlife come out more often at dawn and dusk so, the fast the lens the better.)

I guess what it really boils down to is that I really want the 70-200L 2.8 IS. Fast and tack sharp as apposed to slower and softer (just going by posted reviews, don't mean to offend.) However, I don't want to buy such an expensive lens and have it sit in the bag most of the time because it doesn't reach. :( I need versatility and quality and I know the TC 1.4X is an option however many don't like how it affects the contrast. :?:

I appreciate everyones input but especially those people who own either or both lenses discussed.

Thanks,

[Scottes]

Almost every discussion on this board ("Canon Digital Photography") has taken the 1.6x into account.

The 70-200 is generally accepted to be too short for anything smaller than deer. The 100-400 is generally accepted to be too slow (AF & aperture) for motorsports.

But either can work in a pinch. Getting closer combats a short lens. Higher ISO combats a smaller max aperture. Shooting only in bright situations combats slow AF - at least it makes poor performance not so noticable.

The 300mm f/4 is probably the best compromise.at that price range, but as a prime can be limiting, too.

[mjordan]

I have both the 70-200 2.8L IS and the 100-400 4.5/5.6L lenses. I find the 100-400 every bit as sharp as my 70-200 lens. I also don't find the 100-400 too slow for action and sports. Yes, you need more light than with the 70-200 2.8L, but if it's a moderately bright day, that is plenty of light to shoot at fast shutter speeds.

If it's sharpness you want, don't worry about what the 100-400 can do. Just like with any bigger lens, you are going to have to keep the shutter speed up there or use a tripod or you are going to get degradation from camera shake, although the IS works very well to minimize that.

Both lenses are equaly great on my D30, 10D and EOS 3.

Mike

[defordphoto]

The 100-400 is generally accepted to be too slow (AF & aperture) for motorsports.

That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

All the shots below were shot with the 10D and the 100-400L lens at the end of the front straight at Portland International Raceway where the cars top out at about 195mph.

The 100-400L performs very well under these conditions, as you can see.

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/img_4234_std.jpg

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/img_4236_std.jpg

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/img_4242_std.jpg

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/img_3653_std.jpg

[Scottes]

The 100-400 is generally accepted to be too slow (AF & aperture) for motorsports.

That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

ISO 100? Bright sunlight?

[defordphoto]

The 100-400 is generally accepted to be too slow (AF & aperture) for motorsports.

That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

ISO 100?

No. 200 and 400 in those shots. And it was 100% cloudy that day.

[Scottes]

No. 200 and 400 in those shots. And it was 100% cloudy that day.

As I said:

Higher ISO combats a smaller max aperture. Shooting only in bright situations combats slow AF - at least it makes poor performance not so noticable.

Without the backup statements my statement was wrong, and I must say intentionally so.

[defordphoto]

I always just let the photos be the proof.

[rkoshy]

I always just let the photos be the proof.

RFMSports -- off topic, but ... how the heck does one pan like that? I've read so much about panning, but what's the trick to it? You can't be eyeballing it ... are you?

[defordphoto]

I always just let the photos be the proof.

RFMSports -- off topic, but ... how the heck does one pan like that? I've read so much about panning, but what's the trick to it? You can't be eyeballing it ... are you?

I always look through the lens. It takes a lot of practice in addition to top-notch equipment. I get plenty of throw-aways too. ;) On of the the keys is to follow through with your pan. Smooth and consistent. Press the shutter and then stop. Kind of like spray painting, or hitting a baseball. Kind of a funky analogy, but I think you get the point.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Virtually 100% of the posts on this site discussing these lenses has involved Digital Cameras with a Crop factor.. probably 90% of the time it is a 1.6X crop.

It doens't need to be mentioned.. because this is simply what we shoot.


I own both and the 100-400mm is on my Cameras all the time. The 70-200mm stays at home unless I KNOW I need the faster aperture.

[timmyquest]

I went through this same dilema a few months ago.

In the end i decided that my need for speed (Night photography) was more important then my desire for length.

After i purchase my 17-40 (Sorry dris...canon has won out...or has it? i think so...but did it? bah...we'll see) i plan on buying the 100-400.

So, i'm getting both.

[Scottes]

I always just let the photos be the proof.

And they actually prove my statements. YOU do not fit into the category when I said "Generally" - you are very experienced with both the sport and the lens. You bumped the ISO up, and panned to utilize the slower shutter speed during a cloudy day.

Someone who is going to "attempt" motorsports is not going to produce pics like this for some time.

[defordphoto]

:) And that being said, I prefer the 400 f/5.6 now over the 100-400 for the faster AF and less hunting in marginal lighting.

[Scottes]

:) And that being said, I prefer the 400 f/5.6 now over the 100-400 for the faster AF and less hunting in marginal lighting.

Same for me with birds. If I *need* the IS or close-focus I'll use the 100-400, but otherwise I have the 400 prime on the camera. And it's pretty rare that I zoom out for birds.

But I still love the 100-400.

[aikidoforever]

Thanks to all who contirbuted in this post. You people have helped tremendously. Special thanks to RFMSports, for the awesome photographic examples!

:D :D :D

[Cadwell]

The 100-400L is OK for motorsports. Even in relatively poor light, even on something like a 10D (I'm not knocking the 10D but it's no 1D when it comes to AF). Sure, there are lenses which are better... but I can't think of many zooms apart from the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX and that's a little bit on the short side... The 200mm lenses are not even close to having enough reach for shooting from public areas at most tracks I know. I see the 100-400L being used an awful lot round race tracks. I've used it a lot myself. It does the job.

[defordphoto]

Thanks to all who contirbuted in this post. You people have helped tremendously. Special thanks to RFMSports, for the awesome photographic examples!

:D :D :D

You're welcome.