Has your 100-400 v2 replaced your 70-200 v2?

I'm trying to pack my day carry bag with less and less weight these days and still be versatile, not focused on one specific type of shooting. I'll grab the 35mm f/1.4 for anything low light. Then I grab the 24-70 for general purpose, and then the 70-200 or 100-400 for some reach. I dont want both big whites in the bag at the same time. Why not just the 100-400 since the image quality is wonderful? I dont care about the 71mm-99mm missing gap when I go with just the longer lens.

What would you do?

Actually, I also have the 24-105 so i don't have to live with that 71mm-99mm gap.

.

chuckmiller wrote in post #18872184
I'm trying to pack my day carry bag with less and less weight these days and still be versatile, not focused on one specific type of shooting. I'll grab the 35mm f/1.4 for anything low light. Then I grab the 24-70 for general purpose, and then the 70-200 or 100-400 for some reach. I dont want both big whites in the bag. Why not just the 100-400 since the image quality is wonderful? I dont care about the 71mm-99mm missing gap when I go with just the longer lens.

What would you do?

.
I never had the 20-200 f2.8, but I did have a 70-200mm f4 along with my 24-105mm and 100-400mm.

I found that the 70-200mm focal length range was frustrating to me. . At not even 3x zoom, it seemed to always be either too long at 70mm or too short at 200mm. . The whole point of using a zoom instead of primes is to have a great enough range of focal lengths available without changing lenses. . 70mm shots just aren't all that different than 200mm shots. . I mean, if I am photographing an Elk or a Deer and I want to shoot an environmental portrait one moment, and then a tight headshot the next, the 70-200mm just can't do that.

So I got rid of my 70-200mm and have never been tempted to go back to any lens from the 70-200mm series. . I always have my 24-105mm and my 100-400mm available for use, and these lenses cover anything that I would want to shoot with the 70-200mm. . Depth of field or background blur is something I control by how I position myself in relation to the background, so I don't really need f2.8 to get background blur - I can get that even with smaller apertures like f5.6.

.

I parted ways with the 70-200 f/2.8 because I had the 135L and the 100-400 II. So yeah, it sort of has in a way.

oh, more second hand, low mileage 70-200s on the market?

Mike

I would think that it's dependent on what you're looking to photograph. As Tom mentioned, for wildlife the 70-200 is sort of an odd duck, not really wide enough nor long enough so in his case, it makes little sense. For event photography, parties, weddings and such or portraits, I think that the 100-400 would suffer the similar issues, not really wide enough and too long so the 70-200 might be a better option.

Aronis wrote in post #18872473
oh, more second hand, low mileage 70-200s on the market?

Mike

No, not mine. I may use it less but it's still a keeper.

The 70-200mm is definitely a go to lens for me. As has been addressed, it depends on what you're shooting. Tom referred to wildlife for example: there you my want an even longer lens or extension. I sometimes shoot birds, and that's when I have a longer lens. However, I predominately shoot landscapes, products, portraits....so my day pack will have the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 (and I have room for extender).

I enjoy watches and have a few. I try to make myself wear one for at least a week before I rotate to the next one. Following that, I think I'll make myself load the bag with the 35, 24-105, and the 100-400 and see how it goes for general walk around. I'll gain the IS the 24-70 lacks and hopefully still have more than adequate image quality. If I know I'm headed to something specific then that changes everything and I'll pack accordingly.

I use 70-200 for people and other things close to me (indoor sports, portraits, drama, school events), I use the 100-400 and 150-600 for things in the wild and in the air above me outside.

chuckmiller wrote in post #18872184
I'm trying to pack my day carry bag with less and less weight these days and still be versatile, not focused on one specific type of shooting. I'll grab the 35mm f/1.4 for anything low light. Then I grab the 24-70 for general purpose, and then the 70-200 or 100-400 for some reach. I dont want both big whites in the bag at the same time. Why not just the 100-400 since the image quality is wonderful? I dont care about the 71mm-99mm missing gap when I go with just the longer lens.

What would you do?

Chuck.
At 53 years of age three years ago, I came to the reality that for me to carry a ton of gear, I still needed to somehow lighten the load. Carrying 2 Gripped 5D Mark III’s along with my 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II while walking the city streets of Europe, my shoulder and back alerted me. If f/4 was good through the 16-70 range, why not substitute my smaller lighter equally impressive 70-200 f/4 L IS Version 1. So I did. No problems since. My 70-200 range is my sweet spot for Architectural Details.
However now at 56, I can look forward into the future and see if I can lighten even more. That is where having options is great, if not nerve racking at times......
Coming from the 100-400 L IS Version 1 to the Version II, I have dabbled the thought as well.
Since it appears you have the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and the 100-400 II, there is no real difference in weight. There is a difference in reach.......
Options.........

Yes, age is driving most of this weight thing.

The last few times I packed a messenger bag over my shoulder and walked a few miles I finished with an achy lower back. I just bought a somewhat smaller camera backpack to try for long days of walking. My older 70-200 f/4 can make very nice photos but I'm also interested in the mark 2. Sometimes I make myself mount just that (light weight) lens and go out.

Speed would be the other differentiator between the two. If you NEED 2.8, the 100-400 won't cut it. But based on the discussions above, sounds like that's not a major issue for you.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18872775
I use 70-200 for people and other things close to me (indoor sports, portraits, drama, school events), I use the 100-400 and 150-600 for things in the wild and in the air above me outside.

Exactly this; I don’t do a ton of these types if shoots, but they’re precisely what I will pack the 70-200 for. All, other times it’s the 100-400ii.

I own the 100-400L II and the 70-200L F4 IS II. I shoot landscapes mostly and the 30mm difference is often a big deal to me. so is the weight. I don't always carry both lenses but when I do it's not that bad but honestly i'd rather carry just the 70-200, and I always carry a 1.4 TC. part of the deal is knowing what lenses to own and when to carry them. you need to figure out what works for you. no one can tell you that.