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

I’m with cyberdyne. I sold my 70-200 2.8 as I prefer the 135. I feel for events and portraits the 70-200 is ideal but it’s a lot of weight and not a lot of reach.

I’ve been very happy with the 100-400 and primes but I know many prefer the 70-200 2.8. It is a stellar lens. Probably the best zoom you can buy. I don’t think you could go wrong.

If/when the 70-200 III comes out, it will probably be 500 bucks more than what you can sometimes find the II for now. That can buy a lot of Rolaids.

delta0014 wrote in post #18622101
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.

It's hard to imagine a lens better than the 70-200 f/2.8 ll.... but I guess anything is possible. I will say this: I've been extremely pleased with the results I've seen with everything I'm photographed so far.

For real, my 70-200 II is the lens I've had the longest, and every time I bring it out to use every so often, it knocks my socks off. So clear, sharp and awesome. Buy with confidence, it's a stellar work of art.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18622153
.
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.


.

Utilize new coatings.

Update to the latest generation of Image Stabilization, which should be a significant increase over the existing lens' IS.

Decrease the minimum focus distance, such as they did when the updated the 100-400mm. This would make it a bit more capable of a closeup lens.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18622153
. What is lacking in the current 70-200 that you think will be present in the next version?

.

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18622699
Utilize new coatings.

New coatings? . Coatings affect sharpness and CA, neither of which have ever been reported as problematic with the current v2 of this lens.

.

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18622699
Update to the latest generation of Image Stabilization, which should be a significant increase over the existing lens' IS.

The latest generation of Image Stabilization? . The current version of this lens already has the latest generation of IS, which is good for 4 stops of stabilization. . Nothing 'stronger' has been made since this lens's release in 2010.

.

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18622699
Decrease the minimum focus distance, such as they did when the updated the 100-400mm. This would make it a bit more capable of a closeup lens.

A decrease in MFD would indeed be helpful, especially if it results in a magnification ratio equal to or greater than that of the current 100-400mm. . However, the OP has said that his main interest is in photographing people, and I fail to see how macro-like focusing abilities would help him with his people-shooting.

.
The OP said that he would get heartburn if a new version was released after he bought the current one. . That is a very serious reaction for one to have, so I figure there must be something that the OP thinks is really lacking in the current lens.

Basically, I am looking for all of the OPs thoughts and feelings to be soundly based in logic and reason, and am seeking an explanation toward that end.


.

.
The OP said that he would get heartburn if a new version was released after he bought the current one. . That is a very serious reaction for one to have, so I figure there must be something that the OP thinks is really lacking in the current lens.

Basically, I am looking for all of the OPs thoughts and feelings to be soundly based in logic and reason, and am seeking an explanation toward that end.

.[/QUOTE]


There's no logic/reason behind the heartburn. Just a sucker for new shiny things....

Sold the 135L, probably going with the 70-200L

There will always be a new version after you buy the current one. Just wait long enough.

I have the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM as well as the EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. In the range they cover I also have the EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100 mm f/2.8L IS macro USM, EF 135 mm f/2L USM and EF 300 mm f/2.8L IS II USM.

I don't see the point in the question "Should I buy this or that?"

apersson850 wrote in post #18623108
There will always be a new version after you buy the current one. Just wait long enough.

I have the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM as well as the EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. In the range they cover I also have the EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100 mm f/2.8L IS macro USM, EF 135 mm f/2L USM and EF 300 mm f/2.8L IS II USM.

I don't see the point in the question "Should I buy this or that?"

If there was no point in that question, half of this forum would disappear.....

Well, you could ask which to buy first?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18622721
.


New coatings? . Coatings affect sharpness and CA, neither of which have ever been reported as problematic with the current v2 of this lens.

.

The latest generation of Image Stabilization? . The current version of this lens already has the latest generation of IS, which is good for 4 stops of stabilization. . Nothing 'stronger' has been made since this lens's release in 2010.

.

A decrease in MFD would indeed be helpful, especially if it results in a magnification ratio equal to or greater than that of the current 100-400mm. . However, the OP has said that his main interest is in photographing people, and I fail to see how macro-like focusing abilities would help him with his people-shooting.

.
The OP said that he would get heartburn if a new version was released after he bought the current one. . That is a very serious reaction for one to have, so I figure there must be something that the OP thinks is really lacking in the current lens.

Basically, I am looking for all of the OPs thoughts and feelings to be soundly based in logic and reason, and am seeking an explanation toward that end.


.

I was just quoting what you posted in the rumors thread Tom...

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.

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 too think the 70-200 lens is good for people.
I however feel it bests the 85 and 135 for informal shots.

Off topic, I dream of the day canon make and image stabilized 135 f/2.

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18623668
I was just quoting what you posted in the rumors thread Tom...

.
Yes, but that was an overall projection about an update in general. . Here, we are dealing with one person (the OP) and what would be beneficial to his personal photographic needs.

.