I have to make a decision on 70-200 F4 IS or 100-400 F4 IS

Yes, It's a decision I have to make but I'll need a bit more information since I cannot always trust the web reviews.

I have a 60D with a 24-105 and a Tokina 11-16 and a nifty fifthy.
So as you can tell I'm missing a nice zoom lens.

Here in Montreal I have a 70-200 F4 for about $1000 used and a 100-400 F4$1500 used.Both are IS lenses.

After reading at photozone.web they rate the 70-200 quit high, and compare to the 100-400 it's sharper.Also on the Dpreview forum, the same results.

Is there really a difference in sharpness???

Basically I'd go for the 100-400 for a difference in zoom, but not by cutting quality or IQ as they say on these forum

I have both lenses you are considering plus the 24/105 and a Tamron 17/35 and use them on both crop and FF bodies so lets see if I can be a bit of help.
1) Yes the 70/200 is a bit sharper than than the 100/400, AF is a bit better under low light but to me IQ and AF is not a deal breaker.
2) The difference between 105mm and 200mm ( 24/105-70/200) is not a lot and I frequently ask myself if I should keep the 70/200? But its light ,fast handling ,constant aperture and is a good walkabout tele and coupled with a 17/35 on both crop and FF makes a good duo.
3) The 70/200 is only 200mm and will only make 280mm with a 1.4TC while retaining AF-so you need to ask if that is long enough for your future needs.

I find the 100/400 a bit heavy for general portability although I do use it as a walkabout lens round my local deer park,the 70/200 I find a bit short ,having the 24/105 and it does not see a lot of use.
If I were buying now and was a lot younger where weight was not such a restriction I would get the 100/400 as to me it is more flexible in use than the 70/200.
Indeed having dismissed it when it came out I am now giving serious thought to the 70/300L

Hope this is of use

Chris

troutfisher wrote in post #13309004
I have both lenses you are considering plus the 24/105 and a Tamron 17/35 and use them on both crop and FF bodies so lets see if I can be a bit of help.
1) Yes the 70/200 is a bit sharper than than the 100/400, AF is a bit better under low light but to me IQ and AF is not a deal breaker.
2) The difference between 105mm and 200mm ( 24/105-70/200) is not a lot and I frequently ask myself if I should keep the 70/200? But its light ,fast handling ,constant aperture and is a good walkabout tele and coupled with a 17/35 on both crop and FF makes a good duo.
3) The 70/200 is only 200mm and will only make 280mm with a 1.4TC while retaining AF-so you need to ask if that is long enough for your future needs.

I find the 100/400 a bit heavy for general portability although I do use it as a walkabout lens round my local deer park,the 70/200 I find a bit short ,having the 24/105 and it does not see a lot of use.
If I were buying now and was a lot younger where weight was not such a restriction I would get the 100/400 as to me it is more flexible in use than the 70/200.
Indeed having dismissed it when it came out I am now giving serious thought to the 70/300L

Hope this is of use

Chris

Thanks, sure it helps, specially you own both, Yes I tought also about the 300mm range wich is not bad and has plenty of nice reach.
Would you consider adapting a tele-converter? Some say, well everybody say you loose image quality, also I have a crop body wich make the lens a longer reach.

I'll check the 300l also!

sega62 wrote in post #13309047
Thanks, sure it helps, specially you own both, Yes I tought also about the 300mm range wich is not bad and has plenty of nice reach.
Would you consider adapting a tele-converter? Some say, well everybody say you loose image quality, also I have a crop body wich make the lens a longer reach.

I'll check the 300l also!

I use the 70/200 with a Kenko 1.4 Pro DG teleconverter and the IQ loss is not really noticeable ( well not if you are not pixel peeping) AF is a bit slower particularly in low light but it does increase the flexibility of the lens quite a lot.
Really it comes down to a choice between weight,focal length,portability and end use.They are both good lenses,as would be expected so it becomes a matter of personal choice.

troutfisher wrote in post #13309096
I use the 70/200 with a Kenko 1.4 Pro DG teleconverter and the IQ loss is not really noticeable ( well not if you are not pixel peeping) AF is a bit slower particularly in low light but it does increase the flexibility of the lens quite a lot.
Really it comes down to a choice between weight,focal length,portability and end use.They are both good lenses,as would be expected so it becomes a matter of personal choice.

Sure it's personal choice, but I can't afford 2 lenses.
Is the 400mm ''that'' heavy''?

I'm like a dog chasing it's tail!!!

sega62 wrote in post #13309330
Sure it's personal choice, but I can't afford 2 lenses.
Is the 400mm ''that'' heavy''?

I'm like a dog chasing it's tail!!!

I am 65,have chronic heart disease ( one cardiac arrest) and Leukaemia-I find the 100/400 a bit heavy to carry around all day,a couple of hours no problem.
The 70/200 weighs 760 grms (ish) the 100/400 is around 1400grms and the 70/300L is around 1100.
If I was 40 ,no illnesses and fit as a butchers dog it would be a different matter

The 70-200F4IS was canon's sharpest zoom lens until the MKII 2.8 came out. Its really a special lens. How do you intend to use the lens you get. If you need the range, the 100-400 is great, but if you arent working on the long end the 70-200 is a bit more user friendly with the sharpness, the better IS, and the bigger max aperture. Oh yeah, its lighter too.

I agree with what Chris and Golf have said. If you need the reach, the 100-400 would be the way to go, especially because you already have the 24-105. If not, may be you can replace you 24-105 with 17-50/55-ish and then instead of the 100-400, you could buy a 70-200 f/4 IS. Both 100-400 and 70-200 are fantastic lenses and you wouldn't regret buying either. For me it was just a matter of money, so I finally ended up with the 400 5.6 prime since I already had the 70-200.

gonzogolf wrote in post #13309393
The 70-200F4IS was canon's sharpest zoom lens until the MKII 2.8 came out. Its really a special lens. How do you intend to use the lens you get. If you need the range, the 100-400 is great, but if you arent working on the long end the 70-200 is a bit more user friendly with the sharpness, the better IS, and the bigger max aperture. Oh yeah, its lighter too.

Well I have the 24-105 f4 as I mentionned, so focal wise I'd like something that I could use on a daily basis, it can be birds, or reaching for ''300mm'' is good to, it does'nt have to be alway 400mm, you follow me, but more than 200 without loosing Image quality, I'm 49 and I got little problems with my arms, but I could wear the lens around my waiste when I don't use it, but the 70-200 is also tempting cause it's supposly sharper, so it's a issue where I really got trouble for choosing the right gear.

And if I get the F4 I will want the F2.8 just like everyone else who is on this forum, a real disease!!!!

sega62 wrote in post #13309428
And if I get the F4 I will want the F2.8 just like everyone else who is on this forum, a real disease!!!!

I'm actually quite content with my f4 IS tbh.

sega62 wrote in post #13309428
And if I get the F4 I will want the F2.8 just like everyone else who is on this forum, a real disease!!!!

I have the F4 IS and honestly I dont have the urge to upgrade to the 2.8. Not that I wouldnt if a MKII fell into my lap somehow. But I've come to the conclusion that for those times that f4 isnt enough, then 2.8 probably isnt either. I have an 135L and an 85 1.8 for when I want supershallow DOF or for low light situations.

These are really two different tools and really aren't interchangeable. To base your choice on sharpness isn't enough. Naked, the 70-200 is sharper. With a 1.4 tcon on the 70-200 it's probably a push. Above 280mm the edge goes to the 100-400. Since you have the 24-105 I'd be tempted to go with the 100-400 for the reach.

Easy for me I sold my 100-400 bought the 70-200 2.8 IS MKII Canon's best zoom. Took a trip saw some sheep way up on a hill took some shots all the time wishing I had the 100-400 when I got back sold the MKII and got the 100-400 again I am happy. By the way I had a TC with me but the sheep came up so fast didn't have time to use it and that in it's self is a pain in the butt

gonzogolf wrote in post #13309475
I have the F4 IS and honestly I dont have the urge to upgrade to the 2.8. Not that I wouldnt if a MKII fell into my lap somehow. But I've come to the conclusion that for those times that f4 isnt enough, then 2.8 probably isnt either. I have an 135L and an 85 1.8 for when I want supershallow DOF or for low light situations.

When you mention shallow depth of field, is it because it<s stops at f22, I"m new to photography!

crn3371 wrote in post #13309479
These are really two different tools and really aren't interchangeable. To base your choice on sharpness isn't enough. Naked, the 70-200 is sharper. With a 1.4 tcon on the 70-200 it's probably a push. Above 280mm the edge goes to the 100-400. Since you have the 24-105 I'd be tempted to go with the 100-400 for the reach.

But will 70-200 with a tele converter would be as good images as the 100-400 alone...