70-200/IS/2.8 x2 or 100-400?

[Cadenza]

Pls opine:

Of these two options,

* 100-400 L/IS

* 70-200 2.8 IS L + 2x

Which will give me better performance
at the 400 tele end?

Mille mercis, Cadenza

[gramps]

that is a hard choice if you can only get one. The 70 - 200 is a little bit easier to carry and itis faster BUT the 100 - 400 is not too bad to carry either. What other lenses do you have?

[PacAce]

Pls opine:

Of these two options,

* 100-400 L/IS

* 70-200 2.8 IS L + 2x

Which will give me better performance
at the 400 tele end?

Mille mercis, Cadenza

I would think that the 100-400 would give you a better image than using thje 70-200 with a 2x but I'm just making an educated guess here since I've never used my 70-200 with the 2x TC.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It is a hard choice.. as idealy one lens will do the job of two and save you 1200.00 :)

If shooting a 70-200mm is what you really want.. with only occasional need for 400mm.. then this may be an acceptable option.

HOWEVER! :)
The question is,
Which will give me better performance at the 400 tele end?

... the answr is that the 100-400mm will positively blow away the 70-200mm 2X combo at 400mm. There is no comparison!

Yes.. I have both. :) And I put off getting the 100-400mm for iver a year as I wanted my 70-200mm to do double duty... in the end.. the 100-400mm fianlly found it's way onto my camera and I'll never put a 2X on a zoom again :)

[timmyquest]

Maybe i got a bad copy, maybe it's because of the camera i used but the 70-200 + 2x tcon was not something i ever intend on trying agian.

[RichardtheSane]

2x teleconvertor - ugh!

Ose only if it is the only way to get the shot, but I would not use it as part of every day shooting gear.

If you will be at the 400 end more buy the 100-400 and you will not be dissapointed!

[DaveG]

Pls opine:

Of these two options,

* 100-400 L/IS

* 70-200 2.8 IS L + 2x

Which will give me better performance
at the 400 tele end?

Mille mercis, Cadenza

I think that if you specifically could measure the images the 100-400 would beat the other lens hands down.

But there's so much more to this. If you were only doing a few shots at 400mm then there are lots of advantages to the 70-200 + converter, speed being the first. My feeling is that on a day to day basis a 70-200 f2.8 will be a lot more useful for a variety of things than a slower 100-400. I have the non IS 70-200 and a 1.4 converter, but I need that combination only from time to time. It is sharp or I wouldn't use it but I have no doubt that a 300 mm lens would be sharper.

But it depends on what you need.

[Kent2]

I used the 70-200 2.8 IS with the 2x TC and was quite happy.
I have only briefly used the 100-400 at an airshow, looking at the difference between the two...
I see none, I'll try to post some 100 percent of the 2.

Kent

[Cadenza]

I used the 70-200 2.8 IS with the 2x TC and was quite happy.
I have only briefly used the 100-400 at an airshow, looking at the difference between the two...
I see none, I'll try to post some 100 percent of the 2.

Kent

I'd really appreciate that!

The cost of the 70-200 2.8 IS + 2x would be higher than
100-400 IS L, but then, I could sell my current 70-200 f4
to make up the difference. I have no doubt that the optics
of the 100-400 f4.5 are good, but one thing that bugs me
are the reports that the IS on the 100-400 isn't as good
as it ought to be, whereas it's damn near perfect in the
70-200 2.8. The 70-200 IS seems to make it handholdable
down to 1/60 at 200; what it the lowest handholdable
range for the 100-400?

Many thanks to everyone.

P.S. Also, where did Pekka's lens choosing post go?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Cadenza.. not to make your decision more difficult.. but you are correct re: IS...

Both the IS and to me.. MUCH more importantly.. the AutoFocus.. both are superior on the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (However.. the AF on the 70-200mm will be WORSE with the 2X T-con added.)

Still unless you have a specific need for a 200mm as fast as f/2.8.. I'd personally chose the 100-400mm first. (especially if I allready hasd a 70-400mm f/4!!!!!)

Another thing to consider.. the 100-400mm is lighter than the 70-200mm IS... add in the 2X t-con and your getting down right clumsy.

Lastly,.. none of the above should play much part in your decision..

WHAT??? you say?

Your own use should be the biggest deciding factor.
You need to try and envision what the PRIMARY use of the lens will be.

Once that is understood.. you should get the lens that BEST fits that use.

It's a rather simple yet often overlooked idea... if it's a 400mm lens you need.. then nothing will fill that role better than a 400mm lens. ;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

FYI

70-200mm plus 2X;
http://cyberdynesystemsimaging.fotopic.net/p795037.html

100-400mm;
http://cyberdynesystemsimaging.fotopic.net/p5106868.html

[FlyingPete]

FYI

70-200mm plus 2X;
http://cyberdynesystemsimaging.fotopic.net/p795037.html

100-400mm;
http://cyberdynesystemsimaging.fotopic.net/p5106868.html

Hey CDS,
Were those two shots taken on the same outing? Was the WB and shutter speed the same? If so, my vote is definately for the 100-400!

[Cadenza]

CDS,

Thanks for the samples. The 100-400 is great, but the bokeh on the
200 2.8 x2 looks rather lumpy! Porridge is what comes to mind.



Lastly,.. none of the above should play much part in your decision..

WHAT??? you say?

Your own use should be the biggest deciding factor.
You need to try and envision what the PRIMARY use of the lens will be.

Once that is understood.. you should get the lens that BEST fits that use.

It's a rather simple yet often overlooked idea... if it's a 400mm lens you need.. then nothing will fill that role better than a 400mm lens. ;)

You think you got me here?

But what if I use the 70-200 range a lot, but then
next spring I'll have what is possibly a once in a
lifetime chance to put a 400mm to good use (colorful
wildlife in the tropics), and then come home to
my usual shooting ranges, 28-200? AND what if I
can't afford both???

Simplicity in life is not always overlooked...

[Adam Hicks]

Plus it's 100-400 vs. 140-400.

Adam

[kufel]

CyberDyna - thanx. I personally prefer your shot with 70-200, somoene complaining about bokeh - mind you with 70-200 the background is water.... it will always look like porridge :)

[Molydood]

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but when you add the 2x you loose speed, so the 2.8 becomes..... I dunno. But I think you loose a stop with a 1.4x and two stops with 2x, which means the two lenses will then be similar on speed I guess.

unless you shoot low light, it looks like the 100-400 is the one.

Martin

[Kenski]

that is a hard choice if you can only get one. The 70 - 200 is a little bit easier to carry and itis faster BUT the 100 - 400 is not too bad to carry either. What other lenses do you have?



Wait, wait, wait.....

The 70-200 IS 2.8 is not that much of a difference over the 100-400

70-200mm f2.8 IS
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight 3.4" x 7.8", 3.24 lbs. / 86.2mm x 197mm, 1470g

100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight 3.6" x 7.4", 3.1 lbs. / 92mm x 189mm, 1,380g

Hmmm, I don't consider that a HUGH difference.... as for quality, I would go with the 100-400 over a 70-200 and a 2x....

[karusel]

70-200 f/2.8+ 2x becomes 140-400 f/5.6.

According to Michael Reichmann from Luminous Landscape on this (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml) page, the 70-200 + 2x is even softer than 100-400.

[phili1]

Well I had a similar decision to make and made a wrong one.

Here is where your problem gets bigger. You need 70 to 200 most of the time, you think and so did I but when I went to shoot birds I had to do alot of cropping. So I went and bought the 100-400. Now people tell me not to get rid of the 70-200 and I say why not do I really need it.

70 mm m 135 mm 150mm 200mm with the 70-200 $1500

100mm 135mm 150mm 200mm 250mm 300mm 350mm 400mm with the 100-400 $1409

what are you missing, not much difference 70 to 100 and you have 8 different tele in one verese 4.

In my opinion a no brainer, unless you can afford a 300L and a 400l prine lens for a combined total of about $5000+


The 100-400 is easy to use and contrary to some opinions the push pull is a dream, faster then a twist ring to go from 100 to 400 in one small push verses two + turns on a ring.

Pictures are sharp, it has IS and I just saw some awsome shot with a Kenko 2 x extender that are as sharp as a tack, that gives you a 200-800mm lens.

That gives you 1500 to buy other goddies.

[Olegis]

If you will need only the 400mm end - why not check out the 400mm f/5.6L prime ? In this comparison (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml) it literally blows away the 100-400 in every setting. It is also smaller and lighter.

[timmyquest]

Dont forget cheaper.

Problem i have with it is that it doesnt have IS. A nice feature indeed.

[Olegis]

Yep, the lack of IS is quite bad on a lens like this. There is also the 300mm f/4L IS (also smaller and cheaper), you can fit it with a 1.4 TC and get a 480mm f/5.6 IS lens.

[timmyquest]

Hrmmm....an interesting twist. Thanks for that idea.

[Olegis]

I've been salivating over this combo for a long time now - but the lack of money and recent lack of time for photography won't allow me to get down to it. The Sigma 100-300 f/4 also looks very nice - not as sharp as Canon L primes, but I guess that it's near the quality of the 100-400 IS.

Decisions decisions ... :confused:

[Kenski]

Yep, the lack of IS is quite bad on a lens like this. There is also the 300mm f/4L IS (also smaller and cheaper), you can fit it with a 1.4 TC and get a 480mm f/5.6 IS lens.


How often are you going to use this lens hand held though... More often then not you are going to use this lens on a tripod or a monopod. everyone always says they are going to shoot it handheld, even I did and thats why I swore I needed IS, Its not too often I use my 100-400 handheld... just the 70-200... There is a size difference 400 f5.6 and the 100-400 but I never messed with the prime and I don't know if it requires a monopod/tripod to shoot with but I'm sure it does, maybe someone with experience with it can chime in...

[gramps]

I'd really appreciate that!

The cost of the 70-200 2.8 IS + 2x would be higher than
100-400 IS L, but then, I could sell my current 70-200 f4
to make up the difference. I have no doubt that the optics
of the 100-400 f4.5 are good, but one thing that bugs me
are the reports that the IS on the 100-400 isn't as good
as it ought to be, whereas it's damn near perfect in the
70-200 2.8. The 70-200 IS seems to make it handholdable
down to 1/60 at 200; what it the lowest handholdable
range for the 100-400?

Many thanks to everyone.

P.S. Also, where did Pekka's lens choosing post go?here is a hand held with the 100 - 400 1/50th @f5.6 not perfect but not bad. It's 100% crop with no processing.
http://www.pbase.com/sjh/image/37651417.jpg

[Olegis]

How often are you going to use this lens hand held though... More often then not you are going to use this lens on a tripod or a monopod. everyone always says they are going to shoot it handheld, even I did and thats why I swore I needed IS, Its not too often I use my 100-400 handheld... just the 70-200...

I've just seen a post by RFMSports who clearly stated that he shoots motorsports with his 100-400 IS handheld. The tripod is nice, but it can also be very limiting at times - that's where the IS comes into play.

I myself don't have any long IS lenses, my longest telephoto is the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) - so I can't speak from my experience. I just assume that having a long lens with Image Stabilization is kind of "must".

[Tapeman]

I get very good results with my 70-200L & 2x Mkll, but from what I see posted i'm the exception.

The 70-200 @ f2.8is range so essential to me and with both converters very versatile as wel

[karusel]

Absolutely. According to images I've seen both lens produce, the prime really kills the zoom sharpnesswise.

[Adam Hicks]

As far as handholding goes, no problem at all shooting the 100-400 handheld... I do it all the time. If I need any long term support (like when I'm standing next to the drag strip or something) I just use a monopod. Much more convenient and obviously 3x as fast :)

And as far as the 400 prime being sharper... Duh! The flexibility and IS of the 100-400 make it a much more usable lens.

Adam

[Kenski]

If I need any long term support (like when I'm standing next to the drag strip or something) I just use a monopod. Much more convenient and obviously 3x as fast :)



This is where the monopod will come into play ALOT something like this. Since I picked up my 100-400 after the track closed this year I won't be using it till next year but I'm sure the local clubs will be happy to see it next year. I have already got one club booked for a shoot in June at the track and can't WAIT to do that one. My friend is going to do some driving in my car so I can shoot my own car too.

[sjprg]

DON'T I SAY DON'T!!! try to use the 70-200 past about 20-30 yards. I've had mine back to Canon three times and even had lenses replaced. It doesen't work worth beans.
This lens is beautiful for close up images but it sucks big time at infinity.
If you are low on funds try the Sigma 50-500. It is a great lens and at $800.00 is affordable.
Check in this gallery for 50-500 images.
http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/galleries

[defordphoto]

Obviously you got a bad copy, Paul, or you have some other focus issues. The 70-200 (any version) is one of, if not THE sharpest zoom lens in Canon's arsenal. I use this lens quite alot at infinity shooting motorsports and have been extremely pleased with it. I have found the results from this lens to be very sharp, contrasty and with excellent color rendition.

[sjprg]

I may very well have a "bad" copy, but if so why can't Canon fix it? It does the same on both my 10D and my 20D niether of which have a problem with any of my other lenses.
Three tries and its out.

[Andy_T]

Plus it's 100-400 vs. 140-400.

Adam

If you don't want to swap lenses, that's true.
However, the covered focal length will be 70-400 mm.


Why not rent a 400 prime (or 100-400 IS) for that once in a lifetime situation?

Best regards,
Andy

[k2kv]

Hi All,

I've just joined this great forum, and hope to learn a few things, and perhaps even offer a few things myself down the road. I belong to a number of other terrific forums, and have learned quite a bit, and have also enjoyed the great camaraderie that always ensues. I have been shooting photos since around 1966, had a substantial b&w and color darkroom back then, but put down my cameras while pursuing marriage, and life in general. Recently, I've determined that I've been missing photography, and so I have become re-involved.

This thread is of particular interest to me, since I recently purchased a 100-400 to add to my 20D + 17-40L. However, first (ten days ago) I bought the 70-200/IS with a 2x TC, and went out on my property to see how it worked, and it was great, but I felt it would be a PITA to keep putting on and removing the TC (and the rig was pretty long, too), so I returned that combo and got the 100-400 instead.

I went out with the 100-400 for a couple of hours, and liked the push-pull, and the lens in general. Although heavy, I found it quite pleasant to use. My only complaint is that it is a bit slow, so I'm thinking of either adding the 70-200/IS+2xTC to the mix, or replacing the 100-400 with it entirely (again!), so I can have the 2.8 available when I'm not out on a dedicated shoot.

I am strictly amateur, no pro aspirations, but I am able to afford my hobby, so I could keep both big lenses financially without much hardship (though somewhat reluctantly, as I do not wish to see the money just sit on a shelf), but I'm not sure I would carry more than one with me at a time (I mean, I am not a masochist!). I suppose I could choose to bring the 100-400 with me when out for a day of shooting, and bring the 70-200 when visiting, or where I expect my travels to bring me mostly inside. Of course, it seems I would hardly need the 100-400 at all, if I had the other combo (except that it is more convenient to have the bigger range already on the camera). Obviously, I am having a tough time making this decision, and I only have a few days left during which I can return the 100-400, should I decide to take this route. Can someone please smack me in the head??

I am wondering if anyone has BOTH of these beautiful lenses, and if so, why do you feel you need both? I see from the postings that some have the 100-400 plus the 70-200/f4. And I wonder about this combo as well. Do you folks bring both lenses out with you, or do you first decide what you will be doing for a particular day/nite, and then choose your lenses wisely?

Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer!

Jeff

[defordphoto]

I have both the 100-400 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I also have both the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs. I don't have a great relationship with the 2.0 TC, but it is nice to have when it's needed -- as a last resort.

I love both these lenses. However, this past summer I bought the 400 f/5.6 and that baby is sweet. AF is faster than the 100-400, but all three have their uses and I'm glad I have them in my bag(s). However, keep in mind that I also support two shooters, so that's why the bit of redundancy.

The 70-200? What can one say. It's one of the top rated zooms in the world.

[k2kv]

I also support two shooters, so that's why the bit of redundancy.Ah, two shooters. Now, why didn't I think of that? Sounds like an awfully heavy bag...

Thanks for your quick response, Jim.

Jeff

[defordphoto]

Nevertheless, I'd probably still have all three lenses we're talking about here.

[Kenski]

I have both the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 100-400. I recently while home got to play with a TC to see if it would be worth it to sell the 100-400 and use the TC and just keep the 70-200. NO WAY.... I find my self swapping the 100-400 for the 70-200 at times and it takes longer to take off the TC and put back on the 70-200 then it does to put the pull out the other lens and slap it on the camera.... Quality wise, I say edge to edge it was about the same if not slightly less sharp with the TC...

[k2kv]

So, Kenski,

I see you carry both with you when you're out shooting. I wonder - once you replace the 70-200 with the 100-400, do you ever put the shorter lens back on? If so, why?

This is really the core of my original question - - Why carry both, when the 100-400 will pretty much cover it all, and at less weight?

Thanks so much!

--Jeff

[defordphoto]

When you get in tight areas, those 30mm are precious. And sometimes you need the faster lens. Also, both lenses are very close in weight. If you get the non-IS, then the weight drops quite a bit.

[Sharon P Johnson]

Hey CDS,
Were those two shots taken on the same outing? Was the WB and shutter speed the same? If so, my vote is definately for the 100-400!

I agree the 100-400 is much sharper. Great detail.

[Kenski]

Oh yeah, I use the 70-200 ALOT!!!! Alot more then I will use the 100-400.. Now if you are asking. The DOF is the seller in the 70-200 though... I don't mind lugging around both lenses, I have the lowepro computrekker backpack and if see all the items listed in my signature and then throw in a dell inspirion notebook weighing in at about 8.5# with the extra battery, let me tell yeah, I have one strong set of shoulders and back now!!!!!!

I won't use the extenders anymore but some people swear by them... My uncle used them ALL THE TIME, but he was a photo journalist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Newspaper prints do not have to be SUPER SHARP but if you want to make a 20x30 out of a 1.6x digital SLR, you better use the best damn lens you possibly can and try to use as little as possible to distort the picture if you want to make it SUPER SHARP!!!

[k2kv]

Oh, now I see - - It's the backpack that makes it all work!!

Okay, well your posts have given me some insight, as have the others. I'll sleep on it, and maybe add the 70-200/2.8 IS to my modest shoulder bag. I can definitely see the value of having both big lenses. Actually, I brought home the 70-200 f4 a few days ago, and while it is nice and light and sharp, it doesn't "add" much value for me (though it is easier to bring into a club than the 2.8 IS). But the 2.8 IS seems to offer possibilities that neither the 100-400 nor the f4 version can provide.

And, I must say again that I absolutely love my 17-40!

Thanks again,

Jeff

[Fills]

I'm a little late, but I recently had the same questions and I decided on the 100-400. This site helped compare the quality: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtmlFills