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 22 Dec 2013 (Sunday) 22:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 2.8 IS II vs 100-400

 
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,118 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
     
Dec 23, 2013 11:30 |  #16

The 70-200 is a bit short for baseball and some other field sports, but its a lot more versatile for nearly everything else that its hard to recommend the 100-400 over it unless you only want a long lens. Indoors you might want to consider something like the 85 1.8. You may find that most gyms wont get you 2.8.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,476 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 575
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Dec 23, 2013 11:34 |  #17

Here is where I shoot with the 70-200 in softball - pitchers through the backstop. I also use the 24L for sports.  :p

You are correct that the 100-400L will be hopeless in a gym. Most gyms would need ISO 25000 to ISO 50000 to get to 1/640 at f/5.6.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Dec 23, 2013 21:27 as a reply to  @ JeffreyG's post |  #18

DanAnCan wrote in post #16548201 (external link)
having owned both, the 70-200 is hands down a winner...

2 stops faster
better IS
better IQ
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
  • 100-400L

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 (external link)
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.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jhayesvw
Cream of the Crop
7,229 posts
Gallery: 167 photos
Likes: 255
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Tucson AZ
     
Dec 23, 2013 23:09 |  #19

I've shot softball with my 100-400 and it does very well.
Flip the focus limiter to 6m-infinity. It has fast AF and nice reach.

I don't have any photos online to show but I guess I could put some up.



My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hoffainc
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
47 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Dec 24, 2013 05:38 |  #20

You guys have been very helpful. I'm getting the feeling from you guys I could switch to a 100-400 for softball but may want to stick with a 70-200 2.8 IS II for basketball and auditorium type settings.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Dec 24, 2013 08:01 |  #21

hoffainc wrote in post #16550756 (external link)
You guys have been very helpful. I'm getting the feeling from you guys I could switch to a 100-400 for softball but may want to stick with a 70-200 2.8 IS II for basketball and auditorium type settings.

Yep!


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nsaldanh
Member
142 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2009
Location: FL
     
Dec 24, 2013 08:35 |  #22

hoffainc wrote in post #16548221 (external link)
I'm shooting full frame so I don't get the extra reach of a crop body. I shoot with a 5D Mark III right now. Not to hijack the thread of my own but should I consider changing back to a crop body for the reach?

I shoot a lot of girls softball. I have a 5D MKIII and a 7D and use both lenses. If I'm using the 7D then I generally use the 70-200 MKII. That's a good combination during the day when there is plenty of light. If I am shooting later in the evening when the light is fading I will use the 5D MKIII with the 100-400. Focusing has been very good with very few wasted shots due to focus issues. I have also used the 5D MKIII with the 70-200 MKII with the 1.4x extender with very good results.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
qdrummer21
Member
121 posts
Likes: 8
Joined May 2009
Location: Central, NH
     
Dec 24, 2013 10:22 |  #23

hoffainc wrote in post #16550756 (external link)
You guys have been very helpful. I'm getting the feeling from you guys I could switch to a 100-400 for softball but may want to stick with a 70-200 2.8 IS II for basketball and auditorium type settings.

That would be my recommendation. I used to work for a college and would occasionally take some shots for the athletic department. I would use the 100-400 exclusively for the field sports, luckily in my area Fall and Spring tend to by sunny months so I had plenty of light to work with so I usually didn't need the extra stops provided by a 2.8 lens.

This was before I added my 24-70MK1 and I always had difficulty with the indoor sports.

Examples can be found here: http://cherishedimager​y.smugmug.com/Public/S​ports/i-DTPbRb8 (external link)

Unfortunately, there are no baseball/softball shots as I only had the camera for the last 2 years I worked there. Those also happened to be the two years that our fields were too soft to play on due to the spring melt of snow and a lack of proper drainage so all the games were played two towns over and I was unable to attend.




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

4,587 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 2.8 IS II vs 100-400
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 donmammoser
743 guests, 305 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.