Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 31 Jan 2013 (Thursday) 21:36
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

sell 100-400?

 
kid007
Member
Joined Jan 2010
Western Australia, Australia.
Jan 31, 2013 21:36 |  #1

Hello Peeps,

I am contemplating on selling my 100-400 and getting the 70-200 f2.8 IS mark 1 (second hand). I have not used the 100-400 very much at since i bought it. I thought I would use it more but it has not been the case. But when I do use it, i love it! 2 years back I used it during the F1 and late last year I used it again with great results (capturing birds!). I love the reach and I don't mind the weight.

Now, I may have an option to sell it and get a 70-200 f2.8 IS mark 1 - Should I do it? I am thinking the range is a bit more useable, though it probably may not be a daily lens? I was initially thinking to get the 24-105 to go with my 100-400 - may be this is still the better way? If i get the 70-200, I may get the 17-40 instead of 24-105. 24-70 is out of my budget range.

Any suggestions or recommendations? I did read that 70-200 on a 2x converter may not be that sharp and fast (focus) when compared to 100-400.

Your input is valuable, I have got till sunday night (3rd) to make up my mind.

Thanks in advance.

Have a good day.


5D Mark 2, 400D, 24-70 f2.8 L, 50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 IS L, 70-200 f2.8 IS L, Zeiss 50mm f1.4 T* ZE and 580EX2
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kid007/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
J ­ Michael
Senior Member
Joined Feb 2010
Atlanta
Jan 31, 2013 21:47 |  #2

Arthur Morris is a well known bird photographer who really likes the 70-200 2.8. He uses an extender when he needs the extra reach. He's pretty critical so he must be getting good results with the combination. There's probably a writeup somewhere on his Birds As Art site.




LOG IN TO REPLY
250 ­ Gimp
Member
250 Gimp's Avatar
34 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Ottawa, Ontario
Jan 31, 2013 21:53 |  #3

I think a good combo would be the 70-200 + 1.4x TC, and when the funds allow, the 400 f5.6L for birds.

I have the 100-400 and then got the 400. Now I hardly use the 100-400, as I have the 70-200 f4 as well.

Cheers




LOG IN TO REPLY
skygod44
"in stockings and suspenders"
skygod44's Avatar
6,408 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Southern Kyushu, Japan. Which means nowhere near Tokyo!
Jan 31, 2013 22:05 as a reply to 250 Gimp's post |  #4

There are perhaps as many answers to this (ever repeating) type of question, as there are photographers.

At the end of the day though, it's your money, and only you know what you want to shoot, and how you want to shoot it.

Personally, I use two bodies, so the concept of selling a lens doesn't work for me....I can have my 100-400L on one body, and, for example, my Siggy 17-50 f/2.8 on the other, and get any shot that comes along.

But for me, changing a lens is NOT usually an option when working (semi-pro classical concerts/opera etc.) as there's only one chance to "get the shot".

But, I love the range of my 100-400L. If you have a 400mm lens only, but need a shorter focal length, you're stuck! Same, if you have a 70-200 but need 400mm all of a sudden.

Even with a TC, you're relying on standing in the right place at the right time.

So, if I were you, I'd think more about what you want......after all, a lens in your bag which is rarely used, is still a lens in YOUR bag, available for use!

Regards,

Simon

EDIT: Just looking at your sig, I'd probably sell the 400D for a 7D before buying another lens....but that's me!


"Whatever you do, enjoy yourself...otherwise, what's the point."
6D/7D and ALL Canon/Sigma gear SOLD!!!! Now: Olympus PEN EP-5 & OM-D EM-5 Mk2 and 8 lenses!

LOG IN TO REPLY
TSchrief
Goldmember
TSchrief's Avatar
2,099 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Bourbon, Indiana
Feb 01, 2013 03:09 |  #5
banned

I have a 100-400L and a 70-200 2.8. Since I got the 70-200, I rarely use the 100-400 at anything other than 400mm. If you need more reach with the 70-200, get a 1.4x TC. If I could, I'd trade my 100-400L for a 400mm f/5.6.


Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
FlyingPhotog's Avatar
57,560 posts
Joined May 2007
Probably Chasing Aircraft
Feb 01, 2013 03:11 |  #6

Dead Glass = Dead Money

If you're really not using it, sell it.


Jay
Crosswind Imagesexternal link
Facebook Fan Pageexternal link

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

LOG IN TO REPLY
pdrober2
Goldmember
pdrober2's Avatar
2,318 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Durham, NC
Feb 01, 2013 07:29 |  #7

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #15559004external link
Dead Glass = Dead Money

If you're really not using it, sell it.

this. try the 70-200 and see if you miss the 100-400. i went from the 100-400 to the 70-200 and havent looked back.


Fujifilm X-T1 | 23 | 27 | 56 | 90 | 55-200
Feedback

LOG IN TO REPLY
kid007
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Joined Jan 2010
Western Australia, Australia.
Feb 03, 2013 00:13 |  #8

I still haven't made up my mind. I don't do bird photography as such, it was by chance where I went, there were birds and 100-400 shined! I don't use it enough but when I do use it, I love it. I thInk I would use the 70-200 a bit more but I am worried that I may be wanting the 400 range when I Want!


5D Mark 2, 400D, 24-70 f2.8 L, 50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 IS L, 70-200 f2.8 IS L, Zeiss 50mm f1.4 T* ZE and 580EX2
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kid007/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Feb 03, 2013 00:51 |  #9

In my experience, the 100-400 does not produce the same exact degree of high image quality as the 70-200, but it is a much more useful focal length range. I think being a full 4x zoom makes it extremely useful, while the 70-200 isn't even 3x. That hurts! As much as I liked teh IQ from the 70-200, it just never seemed to give me enough reach when I needed/expected it, nor did it open up wide enough when I needed a greater field of view. Sacrificing 200mm on the long end, but only getting 30mm in exchange for that, on the short end . . . just made it not that useful for the way I shoot.

So, I sold the 70-200 and kept the 100-400, and it continues to get a good deal of use. Your shooting style may be more suited to the 70-200 . . . we're all different as far as how we work a subject and what we shoot.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
kid007
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Joined Jan 2010
Western Australia, Australia.
Feb 03, 2013 06:26 |  #10

I think I am going to keep the 100-400. I will probably get the 24-105 and then I am covered from 24-400! I might get the 85 1.8 latter stage. I was contemplating on 17-40 but I think I am gonna tilt towards 24-105


5D Mark 2, 400D, 24-70 f2.8 L, 50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 IS L, 70-200 f2.8 IS L, Zeiss 50mm f1.4 T* ZE and 580EX2
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kid007/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
kid007
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Joined Jan 2010
Western Australia, Australia.
Feb 03, 2013 06:27 |  #11

By the way, I mostly shoot land scapes and a bit of portrait


5D Mark 2, 400D, 24-70 f2.8 L, 50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 IS L, 70-200 f2.8 IS L, Zeiss 50mm f1.4 T* ZE and 580EX2
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kid007/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
skygod44
"in stockings and suspenders"
skygod44's Avatar
6,408 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Southern Kyushu, Japan. Which means nowhere near Tokyo!
Feb 03, 2013 07:00 as a reply to kid007's post |  #12

Hey mate!

Good of you to rejoin the party! :D

Right decision, IMHO.

Enjoy your photography, and hope to catch you in the forums.

Regards,

Simon


"Whatever you do, enjoy yourself...otherwise, what's the point."
6D/7D and ALL Canon/Sigma gear SOLD!!!! Now: Olympus PEN EP-5 & OM-D EM-5 Mk2 and 8 lenses!

LOG IN TO REPLY
howiewu
Senior Member
howiewu's Avatar
625 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Feb 03, 2013 09:07 |  #13

kid007 wrote in post #15566873external link
By the way, I mostly shoot land scapes and a bit of portrait

I can't believe people were dishing out advices without asking what you shoot.

To me, the 70-200 range is too limiting. The only reason to get a 70-200 that I can think of is to get background blur at f/2.8 for portraits. The 100-400 range is much more useful, not just for wildlife, you can use it to isolate elements for "compressed" landscape shots too.


5DII, 70D
17-40mm f/4 USM L, 24-70mm f/4 IS USM L, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM L, 24mm f/3.5 TS-E L, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 USM, 100mm f/2.8 IS USM L, 300mm f/2.8 IS USM II L, 430 EX II, 270 EX II, 1.4x TC III, 2x TC III, Kenko Pro 300 1.4x TC
Home Page: http://www.travelerath​ome.comexternal link, Blog: http://travelerathome.​wordpress.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
snakeman55
Goldmember
snakeman55's Avatar
1,223 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Baltimore, Md
Feb 03, 2013 12:17 |  #14

You should also consider the 135L. And I vote the 17-40 it looks like you need something wide. Good luck.


-Adam
Wedding Photographers in Marylandexternal link
Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
PaulMedik
Senior Member
541 posts
Joined Oct 2011
West Virginia
Feb 03, 2013 12:23 as a reply to snakeman55's post |  #15

I have owned two copies of the 100-400. I sold the first copy after my first low light football experience with the lens; basically it sucks at low light. I bought the second one specifically for a day time football game and it performed fine, but I had no intentions of keeping it because I need low light performance over reach and the 70-200 F2.8 serves me well. I have owned two Canon 2x teleconverters both version II and version III. I was not satisfied with either version when paired with my 70-200 F2.8.

My answer would be to sell it since you rarely use it. If you need the reach and don't need low light performance then keep it.


My Flickrexternal link | My Fotkiexternal link | My YouTubeexternal link MY GEAR, Gear I want, & Sold Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,092 views & 0 likes for this thread
sell 100-400?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00169 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member is aka5h
963 guests, 526 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017