70-200 2.8 or 100-400??

[calibano]

I have been offered to change my 70-200 2.8 (non IS) for a 100-400 4.5-5.6, I am afraid to lose my 2.8 but excited with the 400.
what is your opinion?

[tim]

What do you take photos of?

[grego]

Well it depends what focal lenght you really need. The 70-200 is a great versatile lens. 201-400 it doesn't have though. So you have to ask yourself what do you need the lens for.

For me, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was a must have for photo journalism because its relied upon so much and that 100-400 wouldn't do much for me. But outdoor wildlife, the 100-400 would come more in handy for a lot of people, I'm sure.

[calibano]

this is the point, I like sport and landscapes too, but I don't have any particular subject. Does the IS really helps? I mean: a shot at 1/125 at 2.8 could be taken at 1/50 at 4.5 or something. Am I doing a lot of confusion?

[grego]

this is the point, I like sport and landscapes too, but I don't have any particular subject. Does the IS really helps? I mean: a shot at 1/125 at 2.8 could be taken at 1/50 at 4.5 or something. Am I doing a lot of confusion?

The IS is good, but in sports(or anything with lots of movement), you'll still have motion blur.

Well, I covered soccer with the 70-200 just fine, so take that for whatever its worth. I probably should have had a longer focal lenght, same with football, but if I placed myself correctly, i'd get those good quality shots.

I also have an 2x extender for my 70-200. So i decided to add a little lenght when needed for something like baseball where I needed more reach.

Example: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/greg9683/MyPhotography/CRW_6600.jpg

[tim]

IS is great, especially in low light. I use the 70-200 IS a lot for theatre work, if there's enough light. What sports would you like to photograph?

[calibano]

I don't do much sport but sometimes some mountainbiking and hockey but I like baseball too.
But the more I think the more I'm convinced Ibetter not get rid of my 70-200.

[danedel]

Just buy a 2x II converter for your 70-200, thats what I did...
Works great for situations with a lot of light, but wouldent take it inside much :-(
Give it a try whats a 2x cost, like $200.00 US. I think its worth a shot. You will regret geting rid of your 70-200, when I got that lens, I sold two others beacuse I never used um! If anything, consider getting the IS version of your 70-200 :-)

2.8x2=5.6 your going to get 5.6 in the far end anyway with the 100-400

[calibano]

thank you all.
I'll keep my 70-200 2.8.