Better value?

[antigravity]

I'm planning to get new glass for my 20D, to be used mostly outdoors, capturing sports, wildlife, etc. What would give me better overall value: a 70 - 200mm f/2.8L or a 100 - 400mm f/4.5 - 5.6L? :confused:

[Tom W]

Outdoors, with reasonable daylight, the 100-400 would be my choice. It's a great zoom.

[antigravity]

is it true that the 70 - 200 will give better image quality?

[Jon]

Yes, but only up to 200 mm. 280 if you add the 1.4x TC. Beyond that it's the 100-400 hands down. Seriously, for wildlife you're going to need the reach, and it won't hurt for sports either.

[griff2]

But bear in mind this is the 20D, so with a 1.4 TC, you'll have an equivalent 200 x 1.4 x 1.6 = 448mm at the long end. Of course, with the 1.6 cf, the 100-400 will be 160-640mm:shock:

[Jon]

But bear in mind this is the 20D, so with a 1.4 TC, you'll have an equivalent 200 x 1.4 x 1.6 = 448mm at the long end. Of course, with the 1.6 cf, the 100-400 will be 160-640mm:shock:

I have a 20D and the 75-300 and 100-400. For wildlife you need the 100-400, or a 400 mm prime. The cra^hop factor doesn't make up for that.

[griff2]

Jon wrote:
For wildlife you need the 100-400, or a 400 mm prime
Your going to have an expensive lens choice dilema if you go for a full frame sensor camera then:D

[Jon]

Your going to have an expensive lens choice dilema if you go for a full frame sensor camera then:D

I'd love to be able to afford that dilemma. I rather suspect that I'll have the appropriate lenses before I have the 24x36 mm sensor.