100 2.8 (non L) or 70-200 f4 (non IS)

Just had some funds made available, thanks to the financial controller, and am tossing up between these two lenses. I enjoy shooting close up but I also attend sporting events etc and my 75-300 is quite rubbish.

An thoughts, pros, cons etc, etc

Thanks in advance.

Close up or macro?

Probably the 70-200. You could also try selling your 18-55 (use the 17-70) and the 75-300 and get a 55-250IS and get the 100 also.

Scoro wrote in post #13852220
Close up or macro?

I shoot as macro as I can with my 17-70, even do a bit of poor man's macro with it reversed.

Get the 70-200. You can get Kenko tubes for macro and save some money on a macro lens

For those two, I will go for the 100mm non L macro, that lens is exceptional sharp when shooting non macro objects! I used mine for portraits!

For the 70-200mm F/4, I will suggest only the IS version! I initally bought the non IS version, after a day of shooting, I returned it and got the IS version instead! The IS is more than just the IS, it has redesigned optics!

I've got and love them both. The 70-200 is more useful and the 100 is more fun. Both make great portrait lenses. The zoom is sharper but both are plenty good in that regard. If I had to pick one it would be the 70-200 and with future plans of either getting both or some close-up add ons for it. Really you can't go wrong with either, just depends on what type of shooting you are looking to do. IMO they are the two of the best cannon values available.

Dustin Mustangs wrote in post #13852679
I've got and love them both. The 70-200 is more useful and the 100 is more fun. Both make great portrait lenses. The zoom is sharper but both are plenty good in that regard. If I had to pick one it would be the 70-200 and with future plans of either getting both or some close-up add ons for it. Really you can't go wrong with either, just depends on what type of shooting you are looking to do. IMO they are the two of the best cannon values available.

Agreed. You can get tubes, close-up lenses, or teleconverters for the 70-200.. for macro/close-ups. You have to put a 2x tc on the 100 macro to get 200mm.. and judging by mine, it really doesn't like the 2x. It works great with the 1.4x, but stinks bad with the 2x.

And just to clarify, macro is 1:1 magnification or higher. The 100 does it with no add-ons which is a pretty big deal. If you can do it with the 70-200 it won't be easy or without some serious sacrifices. Many times that word gets thrown around without much regard for the true definition. Not aiming this at anyone in particular, just an FYI for the OP.

When I went from 75-300 III to 70-200/4L non-IS on my 400D, I was floored by the optical quality improvement. The optical quality was so good I noticed how much my hand shaking messed up my images and how often I wanted to shoot indoors and other lower light situations. So I was compelled to buy a 70-200/4L IS.

I would go 70-200 to replace a 75-300. I would use it more often.

I got a cheap set of metal tubes that I use for close ups. I also bought a 1.4x TC (first a cheap Tamron and then a Canon).

As for 100/2.8 --- I don't use tripods as often right now and so it would get minimal use. Sure, the 100/2.8L IS works well hand held, but, I'm still compelled to use a tripod whenever possible. If you plan on doing lots of macro or close up work, I can see going 100/2.8.

70-200 f4 non IS is kinda meh. I would buy a 200L 2.8 all day long before I bought that.

70-200 f4 non-IS is a great lens. If you're using a 75-300 at the moment, you really should upgrade it

I have both, and even though the macro does pretty well at non-macro stuff, I still prefer the 70-200. And unless you're interested in real macro as in bugs etc... the 17-70 will do just fine for close ups (I have that too, lol).

I had 70-200 f/4L as one of my 1st L lenses, and I found that 70-200 was just boring - no fast enough, not short enough, and not telephoto enough either.

Any good prime, even 85 f/1.8 is better option than 70-200 f/4L for me.

Hmmmm, so many different perspectives. I'm still 50/50. Much to contemplate.

ridindirty wrote in post #13853740
70-200 f4 non IS is kinda meh.

It was the first lens I ever rented and I couldn't agree more. It is the cheapest L series lens but once you try another L series lens you will wonder why the 70-200 f4 is even considered L.

If you want 70-200 go for with f4 IS or 70-200 f2.8 w/ or w/out IS.