Can't choose between two long L glass.

[Persian-Rice]

Guys, I want to make a lens purchase early next month and can't decide what to get.

Being on my second 70-200 F4 that has stopped AF'ing, I want to just go ahead and upgrade. Both times were my fault.

I need something versatile but long.
I am thinking either 70-200 f2.8 + 1.4 tc
or the 100-400 4.5-5.6

Now I I do shoot indoors quite a bit. That's why I am wondering if I should sacrifice 120mm for good speed.

Both will cost around $1100 in the used market, I never buy new. I am really torn, both are really good lenses and I have shot with both, so I know how they perform, but what would be the better choice? I mostly want to do sports with this lens, but both indoor and outdoor.

I'll be honest and say I am leaning toward the 70-200 just because it will come out somewhat cheaper and will give me 2.8.

Cheers

[Belmondo]

PR:
If you're going to be shooting indoors, there's little doubt that f/2.8 is going to be more useful than the 400mm. I have both lenses and use the 100-400 a lot more, but most of what I do is outdoors where the focal length is useful, and the smaller aperture is not a disadvantage..

[CoolToolGuy]

If you decide on the 100-400 (and I'm not necessarily recommending it for your needs) and you don't need it immediately, you may want to wait until the PMA show in February. I'm hoping that the 100-400 L will be upgraded, and if so that will probably drive down the price of used 100-400 Ls.

Food for thought...

Have Fun,

[MrChad]

If your buying used do what I do...
Which ever one shows up cheaper first is the one to get. :)

[Persian-Rice]

If your buying used do what I do...
Which ever one shows up cheaper first is the one to get. :)

They pretty much stay within a 50-60 price range based on condition. I rather pay more and get somthing new. Sorta like buying a newish used car, 10K on the car but its also 10K cheaper. No point wasting 300 bucks so I can open a new box, suckers do that.

I'm not in a huge rush at all, I don't need it for another few months to be honest, but have started shopping around, when is this show exactly?

BTW Belmondo, I if lived in sunny California, I would buy the 100-400, but I just shoveled the driveway that had about 35cm of snow on it plus the 3 feet the road plow guy added at the front. I aint shooting anyhting outdoors for another 2 months, even if I wanted to.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Much as I like the 100-400,. it definately is not very usefull for indoor sports.

In this case the 70-200mm f/2.8 is the clear choice.

[CyberDyneSystems]

PMA is in February...

[scottbergerphoto]

The 100-400 will not focus well in low light. If you need the distance consider the 400 f/5.6. It focuses very fast. Otherwise go with the 70-200 f/2.8.
Scott

[Tapeman]

Everyone should own a 70-200 2.8 It is a very usefull focal length.

[Adam Hicks]

it's a useful focal length... but for me (90% of the time outdoors... I don't need 200mm inside) I use the 100-400. It's a MUCH better focal length than 70-200. Give up 30mm wide to gain 200mm long. I'm in! Plus, oddly enough, it's rated sharper than the 400mm 5.6 prime.

Adam

[gramps]

For indoors I would have to say the 2.8 speed of the 70 - 200. The 100 - 400 is a great lens BUT it sure wants a lot of sunshine.

[Windup]

P-Rice...
I can heartly endorse the 70-200 f/2.8 L.
It's a fabulous lens.
I was looking on the used maket, too and decided to go new. It's not that much of a savings and you get warranty/ext-warr If you want). I had a better feeling going new, myself.

There's a $40 mail in rebate happening on the domestic (USA) version which makes it $1100 @ B&H. Sounds pretty sweet.

Enjoy...what ever your choice.

Marty

[tacos3]

A friend of mine who was in the market for an "L" telephoto zoom had discussion with me about this very topic. It came down to usage. He'll be shooting a lot of motorsports and I shoot a lot of indoor concerts. I have a 70-200 2.8 and use a 1.4x if I need a bit more reach. He eventually bought a 100-400 L. It's a nice outdoor lens and we talked a lot about making a 2.8 longer with teleconverts vs. just having a longer slower lens. I almost always opt for the faster lens if I can afford it. Either way, both lenses are good at what they are intended.

Good luck.

Darren

[CoolToolGuy]

I'm not in a huge rush at all, I don't need it for another few months to be honest, but have started shopping around, when is this show exactly?


The PMA show starts Feb. 20. Check here:
http://pma2005.pmai.org/

Have Fun,

[Persian-Rice]

Thanks, Im now leaning more toward the 70-200.

The reason I won't buy any camera equipment new is because, first, I am not entitled to any rebates since I live in Canada. I can also find a mint used one for nearly $300 Usd cheaper. I plan on buying in Canada (where shipping is cheap and if you buy used there are no taxes) or somewhere in the US that is drivable to avoid another $180 Usd(regardless of it being new or used) in taxes and $40 in shipping.

If I buy used, I will save nearly $500 Usd, which can buy quite a bit.