Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 18 Dec 2013 (Wednesday) 08:49
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 70-200 f/4 IS and 100-400mm IS- Do You Have Both?

 
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,171 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Likes: 262
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Dec 19, 2013 13:06 |  #46

michgirl wrote in post #16540096 (external link)
I am thinking that is pretty much what I will do - the 100-400mm for birding (eagles & hawks). The 70-200mm for the bird feeder, out on the lake and when we do 'ride around deer hunting'.

Same here. I have never taken both telephotos with me anywhere. The 100-400L is for wildlife-focused trips, and the 70-200 is a smaller, lighter weight general purpose telephoto for me.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
michgirl
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,308 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 61
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Michigan
     
Dec 19, 2013 13:21 |  #47

monkey44 wrote in post #16540146 (external link)
One thing I notice - have more trouble with the 100-400 IS 'hand-holding' ... so, have to shoot higher ISO or SS ... and, that sometimes creates a softer image - matter of fact (100-400 is 2001 version) images always seem a bit softer with 100-400 compared to 70-200 ...

Not sure why, exactly. But I shot with a haze filter on 100-400 for awhile (protect it) - and distant shots (the reason we have it, right?) seem softer anyway. But, I removed the filter - and got a little 'sharper' shots, even hand-held. Although, the 100-400 really begs for a tripod (or at least a mono) ...

Strangely enough the 5DM3 with either 70-200 f/4 IS or the 100-400 shoots softer than my 30D. Still "training myself" on the 5DM3 tho, as it has lot of difference than 30D far as settings and user stuff. So, that might be it ... also FF and CF might come into play too.

One more thought -- The distance to the subject is the same, regardless of the FF or CF - although the FF 'seems' farther (or CF seems closer) due to size of subject in frame. But, 22.3 vs 18.0 in sensor size and definition has something to do with softness too, I'd imagine.

Me = a little technicapped, so don't always "get it' when figuring out the 'math part' ... Need to work more on 5DM3 settings and 'feel' (only had it a week) before I can judge, but at this moment, strangely enough, 30D gets sharper shots with both lenses ... Go figure??

I am surprised to hear you say this - I am almost 60 years old, female with Rheumatoid Arthritis and only hand hold this lens. I am very pleased with the results, extremely pleased. This is a lens that loves lots of light. Normally when I am shooting birds, I use Bryan Peterson's "Rule of 16" - set the aperture to 16, and have SS speed and ISO the same.


Robin
Canon 6d / EF Lens: 24mm-105mm / 40mm f/2.8 / 28mm f/1.8 / 50mm f/1.8 / 85mm 1.8
Canon T6i / EFs Lens: 24mm Pancake / 18-55mm STM / 18-135mm STM / 55-250mm STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,228 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1468
Joined Dec 2006
     
Dec 19, 2013 13:44 |  #48

monkey44 wrote in post #16540146 (external link)
One thing I notice - have more trouble with the 100-400 IS 'hand-holding' ... so, have to shoot higher ISO or SS ... and, that sometimes creates a softer image - matter of fact (100-400 is 2001 version) images always seem a bit softer with 100-400 compared to 70-200 ...

Not sure why, exactly. But I shot with a haze filter on 100-400 for awhile (protect it) - and distant shots (the reason we have it, right?) seem softer anyway. But, I removed the filter - and got a little 'sharper' shots, even hand-held. Although, the 100-400 really begs for a tripod (or at least a mono) ...

Strangely enough the 5DM3 with either 70-200 f/4 IS or the 100-400 shoots softer than my 30D. Still "training myself" on the 5DM3 tho, as it has lot of difference than 30D far as settings and user stuff. So, that might be it ... also FF and CF might come into play too.

One more thought -- The distance to the subject is the same, regardless of the FF or CF - although the FF 'seems' farther (or CF seems closer) due to size of subject in frame. But, 22.3 vs 18.0 in sensor size and definition has something to do with softness too, I'd imagine.

Me = a little technicapped, so don't always "get it' when figuring out the 'math part' ... Need to work more on 5DM3 settings and 'feel' (only had it a week) before I can judge, but at this moment, strangely enough, 30D gets sharper shots with both lenses ... Go figure??

Higher pixel density cameras tend to be less forgiving for camera motion blur. I have no solid understanding, even after having read several threads on it, of why this is the case. But I noticed that going from the 5D to the 5DII I had to be much more careful even though the form factor of the bodies is nearly identical.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Dec 19, 2013 15:46 |  #49

michgirl wrote in post #16540193 (external link)
I am surprised to hear you say this - I am almost 60 years old, female with Rheumatoid Arthritis and only hand hold this lens. I am very pleased with the results, extremely pleased. This is a lens that loves lots of light. Normally when I am shooting birds, I use Bryan Peterson's "Rule of 16" - set the aperture to 16, and have SS speed and ISO the same.

Well, you're still a youngster, no wonder you hand-hold it ... :) :) :)

I'm not so sure it's 'shake' so much as distance - on the 100-400, I shoot with the long-end usually, so that's a factor in sharp/soft criteria ... maybe, my tech self can't answer that. On the short end, it's very sharp.

I do notice tho, the 70-200 seems sharper at 200 than the 400 is at 400?? But, have only had this 70-200 a week ... and am still playing with it. The 1.4x on the 70-200 sure works well tho. Then again, at the 200 and 400 ends, that's stretching the equipment too. I'd guess, not positive, that most zoom lenses work better in the middle ranges than at both ends. Seems true anyway.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
michgirl
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,308 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 61
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Michigan
     
Dec 19, 2013 16:34 |  #50

Or maybe your expectations are different than mine ;)

I am just happy to have my picture turn out! :lol:


Robin
Canon 6d / EF Lens: 24mm-105mm / 40mm f/2.8 / 28mm f/1.8 / 50mm f/1.8 / 85mm 1.8
Canon T6i / EFs Lens: 24mm Pancake / 18-55mm STM / 18-135mm STM / 55-250mm STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sparky98
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 8
Joined Dec 2005
Location: East Texas
     
Dec 19, 2013 22:58 |  #51

Monkey44, I think you made a slight mistake on your math when comparing the 100-400 on a CF and a FF. The crop body has a multiplication factor of 1.6 giving the lens at 400 an equivalent field of view of a 640 mm lens not 560. Add a 1.4 extender and you have the equivalent of an 896 mm lens on the crop body. Using the 1.4 extender on a 100-400 on a FF body will give you a 560 equivalent.


Joe
5DIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Dec 20, 2013 00:15 |  #52

Sparky98 wrote in post #16541506 (external link)
Monkey44, I think you made a slight mistake on your math when comparing the 100-400 on a CF and a FF. The crop body has a multiplication factor of 1.6 giving the lens at 400 an equivalent field of view of a 640 mm lens not 560. Add a 1.4 extender and you have the equivalent of an 896 mm lens on the crop body. Using the 1.4 extender on a 100-400 on a FF body will give you a 560 equivalent.

You are correct - was 'mathing' with the 1.4x, instead of the cf 1.6 ... good thing this ain't a test - or is it? Get one wrong, everyone knows it immediately :) :)

Cool, we never have enough reach - so, right there, got another 120mm without buying a lens - or doing anything :) :) pretty neat ... actually, did do something, made a mistake, and it's the first time I "gained" something making one ... HEHEHEHEHEHEHEH ....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,349 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 590
Joined Aug 2009
     
Dec 20, 2013 00:34 |  #53

I've only had full frame DSLRs and own the two lenses in the subject. I got the 100-400 first, thinking it would be a nice complement to the 24-105 in terms of focal length. But I found it a bit too big and heavy to lug around unless I was sure I'd need it. The 70-200 is a much better complement to a midrange zoom in my opinion. I consider the focal length overlap a benefit.

The 70-200 is my primary "kids running around outside" lens while the 100-400 only comes out for things like birds and planes in flight. The 100-400 has become more of a specialty lens for me, like the 17-40 since I do the vast majority of my shooting in the 24-200 range.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Dec 20, 2013 07:15 as a reply to  @ mike_d's post |  #54

I definitely can see the reason for both. The 70-200mm f/4 as a more general range, and sharper than the 100-400L at the same FLs. Especially if you also want lighter weight lens sometimes.

Personally weight does not bother me, so I'd rather have a 70-200L f/2.8 for when I want/need more light or shallow depth of field. Also (along with my FF) I still use the 7D and have not got rid of the 55-250 if I want light. Only bad thing, though decent, it is not near as sharp as either L.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
michgirl
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,308 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 61
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Michigan
     
Dec 20, 2013 09:57 |  #55

mike_d wrote in post #16541654 (external link)
I've only had full frame DSLRs and own the two lenses in the subject. I got the 100-400 first, thinking it would be a nice complement to the 24-105 in terms of focal length. But I found it a bit too big and heavy to lug around unless I was sure I'd need it. The 70-200 is a much better complement to a midrange zoom in my opinion. I consider the focal length overlap a benefit.

Just what my plans are. When I first got the 100-400mm, I sold the 70-200 thinking the 100-400 would do, but have found it to be cumbersome for some of my shooting. I will use it less now, but that is OK, because when I need it, I absolutely love it.


Robin
Canon 6d / EF Lens: 24mm-105mm / 40mm f/2.8 / 28mm f/1.8 / 50mm f/1.8 / 85mm 1.8
Canon T6i / EFs Lens: 24mm Pancake / 18-55mm STM / 18-135mm STM / 55-250mm STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jbrackjr
Senior Member
481 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Georgia, USA
     
Dec 20, 2013 10:18 |  #56

Interesting thread. I have the 100-400 and really like the lens. I was thinking of picking up a 70-200 F4, but am wondering if a 70-300L + 400 5.6 (replacing the 100-400) would be the way to go?? Just a crazy thought running through my head...

I shoot mostly wildlife and grandchildren.


Jim
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
michgirl
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,308 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 61
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Michigan
     
Dec 20, 2013 17:05 |  #57

Received the 70-200mm f/4 IS today - soooo good to have it in my bag again. Forgot how nice it is. Note to self: quit selling lens, you will miss them later.

On the plus side, after rebate I didn't pay much more than what I had sold my other one for, so least that is good! Keeping this one, it has a purpose.


Robin
Canon 6d / EF Lens: 24mm-105mm / 40mm f/2.8 / 28mm f/1.8 / 50mm f/1.8 / 85mm 1.8
Canon T6i / EFs Lens: 24mm Pancake / 18-55mm STM / 18-135mm STM / 55-250mm STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Dec 21, 2013 08:53 |  #58

Am heading to visit family for holiday - THEN, on down south to the Everglades. Just got the 70-200 f/4 IS a week or so ago, and have been "playing" a bit. But, nothing like a trip into the field to really get a feel for how these two lenses will compliment one another ...

Will let you know - have a CF and FF, and 1.4x ... so am very interested in seeing which combo works best. Bought the FF because I want both and the lenses because both work in both cameras. Shot film/slides for a lot of years, and miss that FF. No EF-s lens in my kit ... Also have the 24-105 but am not sure I like it ... seems a little weak at both ends, although sharp in the middle ranges.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johneo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,428 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2003
Location: North Kingstown, RI
     
Dec 21, 2013 11:07 |  #59

I own both and use both all the time, no matter which camera. I think I've gotten to the point where FF or crop really mean nothing because I seldom even bother to think about it.


2 - 5DMKII's, Powershot SX 150 IS
7D, 5D, IR/5D, 10D, IR/10D, Elan 7NE
17-40 L, 24-70 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, 100-400 L IS,
TS-E 24 f/3.5 L, 28-135 IS (x2), 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8 550EX, 430EX
40mm pancake

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pssc
Member
94 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Riverside, CA/ Lake Havasu, AZ
     
Dec 21, 2013 11:35 as a reply to  @ johneo's post |  #60

I have both and never use the 70-200 F4IS. It is a nice light, sharp lens. However, it seems like a strange range for me. Not wide enough and never long enough for a general lens and not fast enough for an indoor sports lens. My 1-4 is my most used lens, so the weight doesn't bother me. For me it is too short for outdoor sports, surfing, birding, wildlife, Africa and not wide enough for most of my landscape.

Strangely enough, my 70-200 2.8vII gets a fair amount of use. I use it for indoor applications--grandsons hockey etc and it is my favorite lens for people, family and running after the grandkids. It renders a picture that can't be matched by any of my other lens.

Cheers, Steve


1dm4, 5Dm2, and a bunch of other stuff.
www.sscphoto.zenfolio.​com (external link)

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

4,996 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS and 100-400mm IS- Do You Have Both?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Hanna16
875 guests, 355 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.