Switch from 70-200 to 100-400

I currently have a 70-200 f4 (non-IS). It's a great lens and very sharp. I also have a Canon 1.4xii that pairs well with it.

I enjoy shooting architectural details, landscapes and BIF. I used to have a 400mm 5.6 for BIF but sold it because it was an expensive lens to have sitting around for the odd time I could get out and shoot birds. I also didn't like that it was a prime lens so missed being able to zoom out a bit when in the field and would see nice landscapes.

I've been toying with the idea of selling my 70-200 and putting the money towards a 100-400ii. From what I've heard it would be good for both landscapes and BIF. The main drawback as far as I can see is that it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than my 70-200.

Has anyone else made a similar switch? Maybe I'd just be better off keeping my 70-200 and throwing the 1.4xii on when I need a little more reach? Realizing of course that 280mm is quite limiting for BIF but can get some decent perched shots.

Depends where you are likely to get more use. Landscapes are not effective in a 100-400. I use the 70-200 more but mainly for kids sport. 100 becomes too limiting for sideline sport. Of all the info I have read, if money is tight, either rent it or buy second hand.

shane_c wrote in post #18719076
I currently have a 70-200 f4 (non-IS). It's a great lens and very sharp. I also have a Canon 1.4xii that pairs well with it.

I enjoy shooting architectural details, landscapes and BIF. I used to have a 400mm 5.6 for BIF but sold it because it was an expensive lens to have sitting around for the odd time I could get out and shoot birds. I also didn't like that it was a prime lens so missed being able to zoom out a bit when in the field and would see nice landscapes.

I've been toying with the idea of selling my 70-200 and putting the money towards a 100-400ii. From what I've heard it would be good for both landscapes and BIF. The main drawback as far as I can see is that it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than my 70-200.

Has anyone else made a similar switch? Maybe I'd just be better off keeping my 70-200 and throwing the 1.4xii on when I need a little more reach? Realizing of course that 280mm is quite limiting for BIF but can get some decent perched shots.

Arent you going to have the same basic investment in cash as having a 70-200 f4 and the 400 f5.6? Maybe consider adding the Tamron 100-400 instead, less expensive and very good IQ rivaling the Canon version, also smaller and lighter. You get to keep a great f4 lens, have the versatility of a lighter version 100-400, have the flexibility of using the 1.4x on the 70-200 when needed, and have less cash tied up vs going to a single lens.

I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 II and the Canon 100-400 II. I think the 100-400 is a great wildlife lens.

I couldn't tell you the last time I had the 70-200 on my camera.

I've looked at the Tamron in the past. I'm drawn towards the Canon because by the time I buy the tripod foot and 1.4x for the Tamron I'm getting pretty close to the price of a lightly used 100-400ii.

I have used the Tamron 150-600 in the past but it was too heavy. At least with the 100-400 I can add my 1.4x and get close to the same range.

shane_c wrote in post #18719140
..... the price of a lightly used 100-400ii.

.
You can pick one up from the Fred Miranda classifieds for $1400. . There were three of them there for that price, and one is still available:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …?keyword=100-400#14608565


.

shane_c wrote in post #18719140
I've looked at the Tamron in the past. I'm drawn towards the Canon because by the time I buy the tripod foot and 1.4x for the Tamron I'm getting pretty close to the price of a lightly used 100-400ii.

I have used the Tamron 150-600 in the past but it was too heavy. At least with the 100-400 I can add my 1.4x and get close to the same range.

Why do you need the 1.4x for the Tamron? If you need one for the 100-400 Tamron, then you need one for the Canon, so that is a wash either way.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18719144
.
You can pick one up from the Fred Miranda classifieds for $1400. . There were three of them there for that price, and one is still available:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …?keyword=100-400#14608565

.

$1400 - $500 from the sale of the 70-200 f4 = $900, and only one lens

Keep the 70-200 f4 for various other things, plus Tamron $800 plus tripod foot (if really needed at all) = $925

So it looks close but:

1) You still have a 70-200 f4 lens, a very versatile lens
2) You get a 6 year warranty on the Tamron vs no warranty on a used Canon (unless it is less than a year old and it likely won't be for that price)

So more versatile a kit, and with a very nice long warranty on one of the lenses...

I don't NEED one for the Tamron but I already own a Canon 1.4x that I could use on the Canon 100-400

shane_c wrote in post #18719421
I don't NEED one for the Tamron but I already own a Canon 1.4x that I could use on the Canon 100-400

You can use it on the Tamron then as well.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18719430
You can use it on the Tamron then as well.

.
Yeah, just because the lens is a Tamron doesn't mean that you need a Tamron extender for it. . Is that what you were thinking, Shane?

I read somewhere that it didn't work on the Tamron.

What version do you have, perhaps I missed that somewhere? If that is true, and one of your goals was to use the 1.4x on your 100-400 lens, then I guess your only option is to trade out your one L for the other.

EDIT: Never mind I see it now, the 1.4x MKII.... Not sure what the deal is with that, I will research the web to see what the issues are with that.

I can't find anything specific on that topic, so I don't know. I would have figured results would be easy to find if there was a widespread issue.

I know with the Sigma 150-600's and I think the 100-400 that the lens firmware is supposed to be set up so that the lens will only work with the new TC-1401. That may be for just Sigma converters, because from what people have posted in various threads it seems the Sigma lenses still work fine with non Sigma TC's, including the Canon. It may be this that is confusing the OP.

Alan