Need Input - 70-200L f2.8 ii or 100-400L ii

Was about to buy the 100-400L but now having seconds thoughts and considering the 70-200 f2.8.

Which one should I buy?

I want the f2.8 but also want the additional reach. Not sure I want an extender but maybe an option.
I have primes that could cover missing out on the f2.8.
Hate to buy the 70-200L then have a new one come out in the fall.... ( I know, just rumors)

Thoughts -
Portraits
Kids getting into some sports.
Lake cabin I like the additional reach.
I like being able to blow out background without having to switch lenses.
Alaskan cruise next year where I'd like the 100-400L reach.
Seem to be close in size and price...

Just an hobby for me, so those are my only considerations. Not really interested in any other lenses that I can think of, although I had the old Tamron 70-200 and really liked it.

I have the 70-200 f/4 L IS and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, both Mk I. I also have a 5D Mk III. Cost is what limited me on the glass.

For me, it is ultimately about reach. The 5D Mk III is excellent on low light, and my understanding is the Mk IV is significantly better. I have no problem shooting at high ISO.

For basketball and marching band, the 70-200 works well. In sports, faster is better, and the f/2.8 makes for a better lens. Shoot wide open, fast shutter speed, and ISO to compensate, and you're fine. For marching band, greater depth of field means f/5.6, so the f/4 version was certainly a better choice. Soccer was far better with the 100-400. I could be on the 20 yard line and get to the opposite side of the field easily. The Mk I being push/pull, I could zoom as fast as the girls could run from one end of the field to the other. The 70-200 was fine on my half of the field but inadequate for the other half. The 100-400 was better. I shot at f/5.6 so I wouldn't need to change exposure when I was "wide", relatively speaking of course.

Based on what you're asking, I'd recommend the 100-400. If you're going on a cruise, that lens will double what you can do on focal length. With kids in sports, if you want to capture their faces so you can actually see who it is, you really want the reach.

Hope this helps!

Band Camp.

IMAGE LINK: http://grahamglover.ze​nfolio.com/p927460208/​e1c0f6049

IMAGE LINK: http://grahamglover.ze​nfolio.com/p380059891/​e7336c475

IMAGE LINK: http://grahamglover.ze​nfolio.com/p927460208/​e94c5ceb

IMAGE LINK: http://grahamglover.ze​nfolio.com/p394577758/​e8af38d55

Looking at your current lineup, you have two of the best portrait lenses Canon has ever released in the 85L II and 135L. What you don't have is a long lens for outdoor shooting when reach is the goal. I vote 100-400 II.

Having owned both concurrently, there was never once a time when I had to decide between one or the other, as both serve completely different purposes.

I got the 70-200 2.8 ii this year and it's awesome. I honestly don't know how Canon could make it any better. My vote.

I doubt I would be happy without both. Having said that, based on your post, I'd get the 100-400II first.

I found I had to have both, and I still bought a 1.4 extender.
I know the old saying that you shouldn't have favorites but, if I could only keep one, it'd be the 70-200.

At one time I owned the MkI versions of both. Sold the 100-400 with the thought I would buy a TC but haven't yet. 200 at 2.8 was my deciding factor, I often shoot between 2.8 and 3.5 at all it's focal lengths.

Obviously 400 is substantially longer than 200, but for wildlife you might still want more.

Depending on sports field size, 200 is a good length. Might need some cropping but with 30MP, that should be easy.

I have both but I bought the 100-400Lii first because I mostly shoot wildlife. This past year, I've been branching out: making sure I get some photos of the people I love instead of just birds.

Anyway, the 70-200 is an amazing people lens. I know the 85 f/1.2 or 1.4 and the 135 f/2 are even a little bit better, but the zoom is more practical for me as most of my stuff is spontaneous... like families often are.

.
I find the focal length range of the 100-400 to be extremely useful at a full 4x. . I shoot a fair bit at 400mm, a fair bit at 100mm, and a whole lot everywhere in between. .

I used to have a 70-200mm, but at only 2.9x, it was very limiting. . While trying to shoot, I was always wishing that it would go wider, and then wishing it would go longer. . 2.9x just didn't give me the flexibility that I need in a zoom lens. . I sold that lens and got an old L series 50-200mm instead, for the added range.


.

delta0014 wrote in post #18620650
I like being able to blow out background without having to switch lenses.

I often work around the f5.6 minimum aperture by positioning myself so that there is a good distance between my subjects and the objects behind them. . The 100-400mm is actually capable of some very nice bokeh, and of "blowing out the backgrounds" if scenes are composed properly. . Ideally, we should be achieving blurred backgrounds by positioning ourselves optimally, and not relying on aperture to do it for us.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18621965
I have both but I bought the 100-400Lii first because I mostly shoot wildlife. This past year, I've been branching out: making sure I get some photos of the people I love instead of just birds.

Kim, this is definitely a struggle for me too.

Thanks,

I'm gonna sell the 135L to partially fund the next lens, it's a fantastic lens, but I find myself either using the 85L or wishing I had something longer then 135. Mostly interested in people, which is why the 70-200L is appealing.

.

delta0014 wrote in post #18622062
Mostly interested in people, which is why the 70-200L is appealing.

.
Well then yes, if your primary interest is in photographing people, then the 70-200mm makes sense.

In fact, with people being your primary interest, I wonder why you would have considered the 100-400mm in the first place.


.

delta0014 wrote in post #18622062
Thanks,

I'm gonna sell the 135L to partially fund the next lens, it's a fantastic lens, but I find myself either using the 85L or wishing I had something longer then 135. Mostly interested in people, which is why the 70-200L is appealing.

If your going to sell the 135mm, then I have to side with the 70-200mm people. I prefer the 100-400mm, but your not me. At first I was going to suggest the 100-400 because wit your primes, your covered. Heck I sold my Canon 70-200mm because I used the primes more often.

If the 135mm is out, then 70-200mm for what you shoot makes more sense. You will want longer in Alaska. Maybe rent a 100-400mm for that, or get a used 400mm f/5.6L prime.

Do get the 1.4XIII to go with your 70-200mm They work very well together.

Yea, I was thinking of the 100-400 for Alaska and we go to a lake cabin with a large property that I like additional reach, but I'm thinking the 70-200 will work and ill just rent the 100-400 for the cruise next year.

Gives me a little heartburn knowing the next 70-200 will probably be announced after I buy this one, but oh well... Could also be 5 years before it's announced.

Definitely leaning towards the 70-200.

delta0014 wrote in post #18622101
Gives me a little heartburn knowing the next 70-200 will probably be announced after I buy this one, but oh well... Could also be 5 years before it's announced.

.
Why? . What is lacking in the current 70-200 that you think will be present in the next version?

Having the "latest and greatest" is just hogwash, unless there are actual features that the latest and greatest offers that you need for your particular usage.

When I upgraded from the old 100-400mm to the version 2, I did so because of tangible reasons that had a great effect on my results - specifically, the jump up from 1.5 stops of Image Stabilization to 4 stops of Image Stabilization. . And the drastic increase in resolving ability (sharpness), especially wide open.

Unless there are specific things about the current 70-200mm that you are dissatisfied with, then there would be no viable reason to wait for a new model.


.