Overall Versatility: 70 - 200 2.8 IS vs 100 - 400 IS

[jukas]

Hopefully I can get this all out without it turning into a book like post ;) I currently have a 70 - 200 2.8 IS L lens that for sharpness and speed I absolutely love, but I'm finding it a bit short on the long end more and more frequently.

I know the 100 - 400 f4-5.6 IS L is touted as one of the best bangs for the buck, but I've also heard it's pretty much only worthwhile outdoors in good lighting and is next to worthless indoors.

So I'm curious, where am I going to get the best overall bang for the buck? Ideally I'd like to get into the 400mm + range on the long end but I have concerns about the 100 - 400 ability to handle low light situations and how it's AF compares to that of the 70 - 200 (my 70 - 200 focuses very fast with very little hunting) and overall sharpness comparisons at max focal length.

For example if you look at http://www.chieppa.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=40 this shot was taken late in the day just after sunset and with the 70 - 200 IS on a tripod. Would I have had trouble with AF focusing in those lighting conditions on the 100 - 400 and would the end result image be as sharp at f/8 on the 100 - 400?

Am I only going to be really happy with the results from the 100 - 400 on outdoor shoots on bright sunny days?

[cactusclay]

I think someone with experience with the 2x converter will show up soon, but I know there isn't too much quality loss with th 1.4x. I would think that having a 2.8 lens most of the time would be better than never having one.

[CoolToolGuy]

If you're only a little bit short, consider adding the EF 1.4x extender to your 70-200. It will take you to 280mm at f4 with IS, and the quality won't suffer much at all. The 2x will take you to 400mm at f5.6 (same as 100-400), but may give you some image issues.

Have Fun,

[Jim_T]

I know the 100 - 400 f4-5.6 IS L is touted as one of the best bangs for the buck, but I've also heard it's pretty much only worthwhile outdoors in good lighting and is next to worthless indoors.


How often would you use focal lengths of 200- 400mm indoors :)

Considering the 1.6 crop of the bulk of EOS digicams, you wind up with the same field of view as a 320-640mm lens

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think the consensus remains 100-400mm as best bang for the buck. Of course intended use could rule it out all together though.

If you don't allready have it,. you should seriously just get the 1.4X t-con ;)

This seems to continue to be the most asked comparison of any two lenses on this forum. New threads appear almost daily,. at the very least weekly. So it is not just you that can't decide :)

Perhaps some of the previous threads would shed some additional light?

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44561&highlight=70-200mm+100-400mm
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41350&highlight=70-200mm+100-400mm
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=60853&highlight=70-200+100-400
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59085&highlight=70-200+100-400
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52322&highlight=70-200+100-400
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45407&highlight=70-200+100-400
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21820&highlight=70-200+100-400
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7372&highlight=70-200+100-400

[jukas]

This seems to continue to be the most asked comparison of any two lenses on this forum. New threads appear almost daily,. at the very least weekly. So it is not just you that can't decide :)


Glad to see I'm not the only lamenting between these two lenses. All in all I think the 70 - 200 may be more versatile for my needs, but I do so long for the 400mm reach even if I don't need it that often.


I think I'll go bang my head against a wall for a while =)

[CyberDyneSystems]

You could allways just keep the 70-200mm and get the 400mm f/5.6 prime... :rolleyes:


I know.. I'm just making this harder now! :p ;)

[Adam Hicks]

I'm with Jim_T... it's funny how many people are concerned about f4.5-5.6 because it might not work well indoors. Please tell me what you do with 400mm indoors. They could make a 100-400 f2.8 L but most of us couldn't afford it and wouldn't want to carry the d@mned thing around! The 100-400 is perfect considering the size, weight, image quality and price point.

Don't buy it if you're going to shoot weddings all day long. It's not a good wedding lens :) Neither is the 1200mm prime.

Adam

[jukas]

I'm with Jim_T... it's funny how many people are concerned about f4.5-5.6 because it might not work well indoors. Please tell me what you do with 400mm indoors. They could make a 100-400 f2.8 L but most of us couldn't afford it and wouldn't want to carry the d@mned thing around! The 100-400 is perfect considering the size, weight, image quality and price point.

Don't buy it if you're going to shoot weddings all day long. It's not a good wedding lens :) Neither is the 1200mm prime.

Adam


It's more that I'm worried how the 100 - 400 will perform in sub-par lighting (i.e am I going to miss the shot because the AF is busy hunting, etc) If you look at the images in my gallery most of the ones in the Felines, People, and Arizona were taken with the 70 - 200 and at least half of them were taken in late afternoon light.

As for weddings, I think I'd rather shoot myself than one of them ;) A good friend of mine asked me how much I'd charge him to photograph his upcoming wedding, and I made the smart move and gave him a referral.

Basically I guess what I'm trying to get at, is that while I want the extra reach, I use my 70 - 200 for a large variety of things, and don't want to pigon hole myself into mostly outdoor ideal light situations in exchange for a 400mm long end.

[karusel]

1.4 TC.

[pturton]

Your picture of the snake (well done BTW) was shot at 1/45 f/8 ISO 400 which translates to about 11.5 EV. I do not have the 100-400 but do have the 400 f/5.6 and a quick test showed me that it would quickly focus to an exposure of 1" f/8 ISO 400 EV 6 on the baseboard under my desk which is lit by a medium overcast sky through a basement window.

The 100-400 should do equally as well. Examples I've seen from the 100-400 compare favourably with the results I get from my 70-200 IS.

BUT, don't part with your 70-200; get the 100-400 or 400 f/5.6 for when you need the extra focal length.

Paul

[Persian-Rice]

I wanted a 100-400 but I find it impractical for my normal needs.
I shoot lots of arena stuff and a 100-400 is next to useless in terms of indoor shooting. The zoom is good, but it is just too slow. The reason I went with the 70-200(non IS, I shoot sports) was that I needed the stop but decent zoom. I got a 1.4 TC for it goes the extra mile so to speak. Down the road I will buy a 300mm or 400mm prime to facilitate my need for anything longer and get slightly better image quality as well. It's a more expensive option but it is also the most versatile combination, as you will be able to shoot in low light.

[jukas]

Thanks for the advice all. I think since my 70-200 IS is already bought and paid for I'll hang onto it until at least I can get my hands on a 100-400 for a day or so to test out (Anyone in the SF Bay Area want to go out for a day and let me play with your 100-400?).

Then I'll decide if I need the 100-400 or if I can just stick with the 70-200 and maybe slap on a 1.4 TC.

[k2kv]

After lots of waffling around, I ended up buying both lenses. And I carry them both with me when I go out shooting. I'm strictly amateur, so I never know what I will be shooting, and I like to have the extra reach when I need it.

For the most part, I consider my 70-200 IS as my "indoor" lens, for when I am out visiting, shooting my little son's basketball practice at the school gym, or if I decide to bring a long lens out with me for the evening. I also have the 1.4 TC.

For me, the 100-400 is more an "outdoor" lens, and if I am walking along the beach, for example, I will slap it on my camera and know that it will cover nearly anything, while my 70-200 would be limited.

That said, my main tendency is to shoot wide, so sometimes I have to ask myself why I am carrying so much long gear around in the first place! But, I do nevertheless, and usually put all of it to work before I get home.

There is definitely a big overlap with these two lenses; it's an old story...

Good shooting,

Jeff