DanAnCan wrote in post #16548201
having owned both, the 70-200 is hands down a winner...
2 stops faster
much more accurate AF
I've owned both and, no, the 70-200 is NOT a hands down winner. On the optical bench it outperforms the 100-400L, but in real life it is too short for anything except little league and maybe softball, but then only on the infield. Add a 1.4 TC to overcome some of the reach deficit and you lose one stop of light, some IQ and AF speed. And you STILL are not to 400mm.
Over the years I've shot lots of outdoor sports and followed this lens progression:
- 70-200 f/4
- 70-200 f/4 + 1.4 TC
- 300 f/4
- 70-200 f/2.8 IS + 1.4 TC
- 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 1.4 TC
- 400 f/5.6L
Of all of them, the 100-400L is the most versatile and is the one I've kept. I used a 40D, 1D-II, 1D-III, 7D. AF has never been an issue with any of them but reach has. Basically, 300mm is not enough and often 400 is too much. Using the 400L prime left me missing the zoom.
It is true that f/2.8 is wonderful, but it does not compensate for the lack of reach. If you're worried about shutter speed, crank the ISO (1600 on the 40D, higher on newer bodies) and take what you get. Or spend some real money on the 300 f/2.8 and 1.4 TC to get both the reach and that wide aperture for really great background blur.
hoffainc wrote in post #16549108
I do shoot some basketball indoors and occasional night game. Sounds like the 70-200 2.8 IS II would be good for that and the 100-400 would be good for the day time game when I want more reach. Just a little concerned about the speed of the 100-400.
For indoor basketball, I use 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L. In a really bright gym, the 70-200 f/2.8 II is a great lens, but in my case it was just too heavy. In a typical gym, the f/2.8 zoom is too dark.