Lenses - Both or just one?

[Medic1]

I am relatively new to the world of SLR photography, but am learning fast and longing for more and better. I have the 300D, only for a couple of months now and already want to upgrade to the 20D, but thats another issue. I am shooting mainly landscape and wildlife in daylit conditions. I am also planning on shooting auto racing and airshow in the summer.

I am looking at 2 different lenses over the next few months. The 70-200 f4 (now) and the 100-400 IS in May or June. My question is: should I get both or just the 100-400? I currently only have the kit lens (ok, but not near what I want out of a lens) and the 28-105 3.5-4.5 II USM (also ok, and better than the kits lens but still....). I can afford to get the 70-200 now, but will have to wait for the 100-400 for a few months until I can save some cash.......

What to do......

[Kenski]

The both serve different rolls. I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 100-400 and I would suggest going with that combo but You might not want to spend that kind of money, you will NOT be sorry though and I sure was not!!! The 70-200 F4 is a good lens though and you should be REALLY happy with it due to its LIGHT weight and SHARP images but there is no way you can replace the 100-400 with the 70-200, unless you plan on just NATURE SHOTS that require you to do alot of STANDOFF work...

[Mark Kemp]

My experience of wildlife, motor racing and airshows is that you cannot have too long a lens, especially for airshows. The 70-200 f4 will give you great quality shots, but a lot of subjects will be small in the frame. The f2.8 version will give more versatility and and allow faster shutter speeds. The 100-400 will fill the frame with the subject better in a lot of circumstances and is also very good quality. I would go for the 100-400 first and then think about what else you need.

[Cadwell]

I have a 70-200 f/4L, a 100-400L and a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8EX. Of my three telephotos the 70-200L is used the least. In fact it would be fair to say that I rarely use it. That's not because it's a bad lens. On the contrary, it's superb; but for motorsport it simply isn't long enough at most circuits. Likewise for nature photography and airshows, you're going to be at the long end of the 100-400mm most of the time.

If you were thinking of buying the 100-400L and the 70-200L f/2.8 my advice would be different... but given your intentions I'd say get the 100-400L and treat yourself to a better wide angle for the landscape stuff.

[CoolToolGuy]

I would wait on the 100-400 L for a month or so unless you have an immediate need. I have a sneaking suspicion (perhaps just wishful thinking) that Canon may upgrade/replace this lens soon, and they usually announce new products at the PMA show, which is Feb. 20. I have nothing to back that up, just that it is one of the oldest 'L's, and has been cited for softness at the long end. Some have criticized it for not being weatherproof, and there is a contingent that accuses it of being a 'dust sucker' due to the push-pull zoom action. So if they come out with a new version you are so much the better. If not, go for it.

I can't disagree with the contention that the 70-200 is short for motorsports, but it is an outstanding lens, and can be useful around the pits and paddock.

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

[CyberDyneSystems]

Get the 100-400 first.

If I had a 70-200mm f/4.. I would never use it,. as I would allways have the 100-400mm on the camera.

I DO use the 70-200mm f/2.8.. but thats because of the faster shutter I get in low light with the larger f/2.8

Without that f/2.8 the 70-200mm would be of little use to me.

Your Milage may vary.

[RichardtheSane]

I have the 100-400, and I love it.

If I had to choose my lens that has been on the camera when I made the highest percentage of my keepers it is the 100-400L

I also have the 70-200 F4 L - but I purchased it for a specific purpose and I spent some time identifying the need for it.

Get the 100-400L, and then get a wide angle (like the 17-40 F4) instead of the 70-200 F4.

[Scottes]

Get the 100-400 first, and see if you can hold off for the 70-200 f/2.8.

Without that f/2.8 the 70-200mm would be of little use to me.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I have the 100-400L and the 70-200 f/2.8 and the only reason that I still have the 70-200 is because it's f/2.8. I barely use it (but it's precious when I do) but if I had the f/4 I would probably never use it. It's just not enough gain over the 100-400.

[Kenski]

I guess I didn't read his whole post.. Didn't see what his ENTIRE intentions were... Yeah, I would go with the 100-400 first then... I bought both of mine at the same time and if I were you, I would go with the 100-400 first...

[ssim]

I'll go along with the concensus here and that is you should get the 100-400 first. I got the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-400 at the same time. Had I known then what I know now I probably wouldn't have gotten the 70-200. I don't use it anywhere near the amount of time I use the 100-400.

You won't be disappointed with that lens.

[johneo]

I say go for the 100-400 L now ... Great lens!

I've got the 100-400 L and plan to get the 70-200 f/4 L over the next few months but that's because when the 100-400 is on my 10D, my Elan 7ne has a much smaller lens on it making it rather useless for a lot of the stuff I like to shoot and swaping the 100-400 a bunch of times is just asking for trouble, sooner or later. I will also probably get a TC with it.

As someone else suggested (and a VERY good idea) ... get the 100-400 L and a 17-40 L They are a couple of good lenses to go with what you have and both are excellent lenses even though a little expensive. You can't go wrong with these two.

[merrrrjig]

I would say get both!

[Kenski]

hehehe, I say get both too but he needs to get the 100-400 first... I use my 70-200 alot more then I use my 100-400 but thats ok, when spring and summer gets here, I'll be using the 100-400 more then the 70-200 then...

[lmelendez]

I would say there is a lot of people that are not using the 70-200 F4 L ... and since I want to buy one, they should put them in the marketplace!!!

Sorry I don't mean to hijack the thread... it was just a quick commercial ;)

Leo.

[Medic1]

Thanks for the info......money is not really an issue, except that I really did not want to buy 2 lenses at $2000 CDN + right now. I can get the 70-200 f4 for about $100 under list price, so thats why I thought about going with it first. I really like the 70-200 2.8, but was not sure how much I would use it when I finally had both it and the 100-400.

I find that I use my 28-105 near the long end, but not completely, so thats why I was going at the 70-200.....but from what I hear the 100-400 is a must, which is what I originally thought, but I just wanted confirmation.

Thanks for all the opinions guys....I think I will wait a few weeks and get the 100-400 first.....