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

If you're looking for a general purpose, longer telephoto I would go with the 70-200. The 100-400 is great for wildlife, including the various critters you find around the city; but it is large...especially compared to the 70-200 f/4. And if you can get the IS version of the f/4 for $1000, I'd jump on that quick and save up for the longer lens later on; that price for the 100-400 isn't really all that great.

Also note that the 100-400 is not f/4; it is f/4.5 - 5.6. They're both great lenses but I find the 100-400 is much more of a specific tool than the 70-200.

sega62 wrote in post #13309555
But will 70-200 with a tele converter would be as good images as the 100-400 alone...

For the most part, no. Also, you lose a stop of aperture or more depending on which TC you use (1.4 = -1 stop; 2x = -2 stops. And you lose AF with the 2x attached, as well)

Why do you need 400mm, esp. on a crop? What are you planning to shoot that will require this reach?

jrbdmb wrote in post #13309593
Why do you need 400mm, esp. on a crop? What are you planning to shoot that will require this reach?

Where I live I have a nice place to shoot birds that migrate!
It<s a wonderful park.And scenery!

Given that nugget, if you're planning to do a bunch of shooting as the migrations happen, go for the 100-400 over the 70-200. It's the tool for that job, for sure.

Snydremark wrote in post #13309853
Given that nugget, if you're planning to do a bunch of shooting as the migrations happen, go for the 100-400 over the 70-200. It's the tool for that job, for sure.

Well like I mentionned earlier, the deal on the 100-400 is $1500 with the filter.
And someone sais it<s not that much of a deal!

So I have to speak to the owner!
What would be a good price, I mean fair price!

For the same price and for shooting birds I'd go for the 300mm f4 IS and get the 1.4X extender if I needed more reach.

The lens can be had for $1614 new, in box or refurbished, directly from Canon $1360. If the filter in discussion is a UV filter, that isn't really a selling point as it's just extra glass in front of the lens.

But if you plan to shoot the birds coming through, it's the right tool for the job, regardless of the price difference. If you need a hammer, you don't buy a screwdriver, instead, just because it's cheaper

That being said, the 70-200 f/4 IS can be had new, in box for $1249 or or refurbished, directly from Canon $1079.

You can use those numbers to figure out what seems a fair price that you'd be willing to pay.

sega62 wrote in post #13309532
When you mention shallow depth of field, is it because it<s stops at f22, I"m new to photography!

Nope, to the contrary!! In essence, DOF is a function of three things: aperture, focal length and subject distance. You would get shallower DOF with wider apertures (smaller f-stop numbers) or longer focal lengths assuming you kept the subject distance and the other variable constant.

Play with this http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html to get a better idea. Or if you are technically inclined, read this: http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Depth_of_field

Snydremark wrote in post #13309946
The lens can be had for $1614 new, in box or refurbished, directly from Canon $1360. If the filter in discussion is a UV filter, that isn't really a selling point as it's just extra glass in front of the lens.

But if you plan to shoot the birds coming through, it's the right tool for the job, regardless of the price difference. If you need a hammer, you don't buy a screwdriver, instead, just because it's cheaper

That being said, the 70-200 f/4 IS can be had new, in box for $1249 or or refurbished, directly from Canon $1079.

You can use those numbers to figure out what seems a fair price that you'd be willing to pay.

Ok I<ll look at Canons website too, thanks.

If your in Montreal, Lozeau has the lenses you mentioned on sale till the end of October. Buy new and get hassle free warranty or use the pricing as a guide to judge if you're getting a good deal. My vote would be for the 70-300L, good compromise.

What do you intend to shoot ?? For wildlife you NEVER EVER have enough reach. Go for the 100-400, I'm going to pick up a 70-200 soon, but I would never consider it as a wildlife lens even though I've seen quite good shots from them.
Good luck.

h14nha wrote in post #13310246
What do you intend to shoot ?? For wildlife you NEVER EVER have enough reach. Go for the 100-400, I'm going to pick up a 70-200 soon, but I would never consider it as a wildlife lens even though I've seen quite good shots from them.
Good luck.

It<s true that for wildlife 400 is barely OK, it<s crazy how a 200 has little reach, I know I had one but the one at $750 range.

sega62 wrote in post #13308765
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

what about 70-300L???

anyway if you need reach you need reach and 100-400 will put more detail on distance object than f/4 IS or 70-300L if you want to compromise reach for best 100-200mm quality then 70-300L might make the most sense

70-200 f/4 IS will put a LOT less detail than a 400mm lens even if the 200mm is amazing and the 400mm average

sega62 wrote in post #13309733
Where I live I have a nice place to shoot birds that migrate!
It<s a wonderful park.And scenery!

100-400L...the 70-200mm is too short for that