Move to Canon 100-400 L?

Hi All,

I have a Canon 70-200 f4 L IS and its a great lens but it just does not have the reach for wildlife and some motorsport.

I have been thinking of getting the 1.4x converter but an put off by how this might slow down the autofocus on my 60D.

Over the past few days I have thought about selling the 70-200 and buying a 100-400 L. I have been doing lots of research on this lens and read mixed reports. Some people complain of dust inside the lens due to the push/pull design.

Im not too worried about f5.6 at 400mm as you can't have it all for £1200!

I like how light my 70-200 f4 is and I know the 100-400 will feel like a monster in comparison. Has anyone out there made this change or can you speak for how good the 100-400 L is?

Thanks.

Never used a 70-200/4.0 but I can testify that push pull or not, you'll love the 100-400. It has a lot of reach, is sharp and not heavy on one's shoulders. Pretty good buy, new or pre-loved

TheMightyDaff wrote in post #13742004
Some people complain of dust inside the lens due to the push/pull design.

But only the stupid ones. If you've got a lens that changes length when you zoom then air will have to move in and out of the lens. Whether that change in length is done via a push-pull or twisting operation is immaterial.

Personally, I really like the push-pull zoom.

I have a 70-200 and a 100-400. I don't consider them redundant. They serve different purposes, i.e., I never fret over which lens I need for the day. It's based on my goals.

70-200 is sharp, covers the portrait ranges (85-135), and requires less light. The 100-400 has more reach, of course, and, with its push-pull zoom, is better at catching, zooming and tracking moving things like cars, planes, birds, etc. It requires a lot of light and it's typical use is not amenable to flash.

If you're not using your 70-200 as a people/portrait/places lens and constantly striving for more reach, the 100-400 will be a nice trade.

You can get a Better Beamer and extend the flash substantially, often used for wildlife.

frankk wrote in post #13742050
I have a 70-200 and a 100-400. I don't consider them redundant. They serve different purposes
...
If you're not using your 70-200 as a people/portrait/places lens and constantly striving for more reach, the 100-400 will be a nice trade.

I agree. If you are thinking of using the lens for say wildlife and really want more reach, one could even argue that you should get the 400mm 5.6 lens instead of the 100-400. In either case, I think you should keep the 70-200, if you can afford to.

I rented the 100-400 for a week and was very pleased and I found a great deal on one a few months later. I got used to it pretty quick. I do use my 70-200 a lot more. The AF is a lot faster on the 70-200 as well but I shot some little league football with the 100-400 during the day. I can hand hold the 70-200 2.8 all day but on long days with the 100-400 on long days I use a monopd and find it helps with getting sharper results being more steady.

Happy Shopping!

Mighty Daff, DO NOT SELL the 70-200 f4! You will regret it! I just bought mine back from a guy I trade with. It is so sharp! I like it as much as the 2.8 version. It will take a 1.4X TC VERY WELL. I used that combo on the beach and backpacking many occasions. On a crop body like the 60D, the 1.4X gets you the same as the 100-400 with a 1/3 of the weight! AF is not slowed to any noticable degree, at least when I used it on my 50D.

I have the 70-200 f4 and the 100-400 and if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the 100-400 in a heartbeat. The simple fact of the range is enough to swing it, it gives great IQ and I like the push pull zoom as I find it easier to keep on target while altering the length. The dust issue is really a non issue as most lenses will eventually get dust in them but it doesn't affect the images at all. It might be a hefty beast but you soon get used to it and I use it all day hand held on occasions.
The 70-200 f4 might give a fraction better IQ and is fast focussing even with a 1.4x TC but it still hasn't got the finesse of the 100-400 IMO. At the moment the 70-200 is my most used lens at the moment but, come to summer and all the airshows and events the 100-400 will be back.

The 100-400 is a great lens. It is not a "monster" at all. With camera, it fits in my Tamrac holster bag and it is very convenient to carry around.

A few shots I took with this lens:

Love my 100-400 as well. Bought it specifically for an African safari and it perfomed superbly with my 60D. It stayed near the 400 end most of the time for the birds, and between 200 and 400 for the larger animals. On my next safari, I am planning on taking it plus my Sigma 70-200 2.8. For the evening drives I think the 2.8 will be a huge help. May even try the flash this time. I would keep both if I were in your boat

Thanks everyone for all your comments and advice, plenty for me to think about.

I own both lenses, and wouldn't give up either one. The 70-200 is a terrific, light weight telephoto and beats the 100-400 in every way except for a very important one -- reach. The 100-400 is still a very good lens, and it's tough to beat for its versatility when shooting wildlife.

When we are traveling, I will take the 100-400 if I expect to be shooting a lot of wildlife. If I just need a standard telephoto, though, I will pack the 70-200 instead.

I just gave up my 70-200 f4 after having it for many years. i got the 2.8 IS and the f4 hardly ever went back into the bag, not because I didn't love it, because I loved the f4, but the 2.8 IS was more useful for my work. The 100-400 was what I used for soccer shooting in the larger fields. Both are great lenses. Just have to decide ho much of a reach you need. The 100-400 is huge and not easy to fit into a bag, but so useful for wildlife. I wish I had it when we went to Yellowstone the 2nd time. I just have the 70-200 and the 100-400 would have been more useful.