70-200 F4 or 100-400 F4.5/5.6?

[Arslan]

Hi, I'm trying to choose a new lens for my Canon 300D. My choice falls between 70-200 F4 (680€ new) and 100-400L IS 4,5/5,6 (950€ used). Which thoughts are the better purchase? I have 300D Kit + 50 1.8. Thanks for the answers.

[pcimaging]

This is a personal choice based on what you like to photograph. I know if you are wanting to shoot birds and or wildlife then the longer zoom is a must have. If you do not think they are subjects you will shoot often, then you might want the benefit of carrying a much lighter lens. The 100-400 is a heavy bugger although not so bad you could not carry it if you need to use its extra long zoom. But again, the 70-200 is so much lighter and some people even say it is sharper than the 100-400, that may be your preference. I sold my 70-200 f4L to be able to get the 100-400 because it meets my needs better.

[tim]

Like pcimaging says, they're different lenses and have different uses. Personally i'd get the 70-200 because I don't take wildlife photos, but i'd get the F2.8 IS version.

[raylks]

That depends on what you shoot. If you shoot wildlife, then 100-400 can feed you well. If don't shoot wildlife and shoot landscape, or other topics, then 70-200mm is sufficient.

If you are not budget user, consider 70-200mm f2.8. It is damn great.

[flyfishnj]

get both

[Skip Souza]

Rob a bank and get 'em both!

[Arslan]

Tnx for reply :)
There is truly therefore much difference between the 70-200 f4 and 70-200 f2.8 in order to justify the price difference?
Reading many book reviews I had understood that perhaps it is better to save the money in more if truly it does not serve the f2.8.

I have need more information before acquiring: (

[mr.photoguy]

100-400 is a great lens.. excellent for bird photography, great for the extra reach.
70-200 f4 is also a great lens, great for portraits, and city shots, light & portable.
Great for portraits, candids, buildings, the zoo..

It depends on what your inteded uses are, which you have not stated yet.

[Odin]

I have the same doubts, have just converted to dSLR fro SLR and changed brand from good old Minolta to the market leading Canon. However, I mostly take city, or street photos, and can't have a propper answer if I should go for the full monthy 70-200- 2.8 IS or save the money and buy a f/4. What I do not want is to buy a 4 and then find out I should have gone for a 2.8 OR even more a IS..... I feel like something between a child in the candy store and Winnie the Phoo..

[blue_max]

The 70-200 has a very strong resale value, so if you have six months use out of it and decide you really need a much heavier and more expensive lens to get the extra stop, you could sell for not much loss.

Or you might find that you need a completely different lens if you move into other areas. It is a relatively low cost way to try before you buy, so to speak.

If you read the reviews, nobody seems to be sorry they bought it.

Graham

[Odin]

Thanks Graham,

the point is really that I am not a kind of a salesman, I hate that part and hence, I guess I loss money whereever I go. lol
But point taken, hopefully the 4 will work under most light conditions.

[ed2day]

I own the 70-200L f/4 and just recently bought the 100-400L. I love them both, but I think the 70-200 will see much less useage from now on. I briefly considered selling it, but the portability factor is crucial for me sometimes. The 100-400 is useful for more than birds and wildlife. I think it's ideal for kids' soccer/baseball/football games, etc. The 70-200 is underated as a portrait lens IMO.

[blue_max]

See what I mean?

You don't really have to 'sell' it, just announce it is up for grabs (this forum will help you out for no cost to yourself).

It is such a versatile lens that you will have a use for it, no matter what else you own.

An awful lot of people approach L lenses via this lens (and I don't mean they are awful!)

Still, it's a lovely decision to have to make and either lens will probably not be the last.

Graham

[Pb2Au]

I have both, and I find that I use the 100-400L more often (nature shots mostly). If I have the 70-200L mounted and need a 350mm zoom, I lost the shot (for an animal shot), If I have the 100-400L mounted and I need a 70mm, well I take a step back. ;) The 100-400L is almost exactly twice the weight, but I love the IS.

[slacker]

I have both, but the 100-400 is attached to my Rebel most of the time because I like the extra reach for birds and love IS (I need lots of work on my hand-held shooting technique).

[blue_max]

I have both, and I find that I use the 100-400L more often (nature shots mostly). If I have the 70-200L mounted and need a 350mm zoom, I lost the shot (for an animal shot), If I have the 100-400L mounted and I need a 70mm, well I take a step back. ;) The 100-400L is almost exactly twice the weight, but I love the IS.

I don't want to be seen as a salesman of the 70-200, but I am not sure that this is a fair comparison. The fact that you have them mounted and are trying to shoot nature would overwhelmingly make the larger lens more suitable. And if you can take a step back, can you not take a step closer :D

The 70-200 is a shoot the kids in the park on a nice day lens, or that type of thing.

If I had the 1200, it would be better for taking pictures of celebrities doing rude things than either of these!

Graham

[hickory]

OK, save some money by buying the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the Canon 100-400 IS. :-)
I must say since I got the 100-400 I've not had my Sigma out of the bag, and have considered selling it. But I like having the f2.8 for fall school sports here.