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

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.

Do you keep all of that in the bag ready to grab?

chuckmiller wrote in post #18872989
Do you keep all of that in the bag ready to grab?

I doubt that TeamSpeed shoots indoor sports and wildlife during the same shoot. Most photogs I know would gear up to suit the type of photo they expect to take that day. I have both lenses and each has its strengths and weaknesses, but I can't recall taking BOTH with me on a shoot.

As for the idea that the 100-400 renders the 70-200 redundant, that hasn't been the case with me. I enjoy both.

Leave the 70-200mm at home. I made the mistake of packing it for a few on my big trips, (first trip to Africa, Galapagos...) in both cases the lens was simply weight, and never used.

You can easily live with a 30mm hole between 70 and 100mm? That's like two or three steps forward or back..

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18873035
Leave the 70-200mm at home. I made the mistake of packing it for a few on my big trips, (first trip to Africa, Galapagos...) in both cases the lens was simply weight, and never used.

You can easily live with a 30mm hole between 70 and 100mm? That's like two or three steps forward or back..

I know it isn't perfect, but if 70 is too short and 100 is too long then i hope to foot zoom or just let the shot go. But, the plan for now is to begin making myself pack the 24-105 and the 100-400 so I don't have a gap. With the 24-105 f/4 lens I'll lose the f/2.8 but gain IS and cover the gap, with only a small drop in image quality. I hope to make up the difference with more ISO or less shutter speed. If I KNOW ahead of time that light will be dim then I will shift back to packing a 2.8 lens but the point here is to remain versatile when I dont know what the day will bring. I do have both the 24mm amd 35mm f/1.4 lenses for when I know light will be an issue.

chuckmiller wrote in post #18873076
I know it isn't perfect, but if 70 is too short and 100 is too long then i hope to foot zoom or just let the shot go. But, the plan for now is to begin making myself pack the 24-105 and the 100-400 so I don't have a gap. With the 24-105 f/4 lens I'll lose the f/2.8 but gain IS and cover the gap, with only a small drop in image quality. I hope to make up the difference with more ISO or less shutter speed. If I KNOW ahead of time that light will be dim then I will shift back to packing a 2.8 lens but the point here is to remain versatile when I dont know what the day will bring. I do have both the 24mm amd 35mm f/1.4 lenses for when I know light will be an issue.

I don't know which body or bodies you're shooting with, but with most newer bodies and software, there is very little gain in *most* situations for swapping out an f/4 for an f/28 for *light* purposes; a single stop is pretty easy to deal with with ISO and a little NR. If you're wanting shallower DoF, then for sure go for it, I would say.

That combo of lenses has worked incredibly well for me for nearly a decade, with an ultrawide thrown in for more outdoorsy trips.

All this discussion is why I now prefer my 70-300L! Sure is compact, light weight and a nice compromise to my 100-400L II or something shorter.

Petie53 wrote in post #18873122
All this discussion is why I now prefer my 70-300L! Sure is compact, light weight and a nice compromise to my 100-400L II or something shorter.

Honestly I was just waiting for someone to add this.

Great thread.

Mike

.

Petie53 wrote in post #18873122
All this discussion is why I now prefer my 70-300L! Sure is compact, light weight and a nice compromise to my 100-400L II or something shorter.

.
It sure is a decent compromise between a 100-400 and a 70-200, except that it has the slowness of the 100-400 without the reach. . So, as you allude to, its primary advantage may be in weight or size savings.

Speaking of compromises between 70-200 and 100-400 ...... I think that if Sigma or Tamron made a high quality 70-300mm f4, it would sell reasonably well, especially to those who are not concerned about weight or size. . To the best of my knowledge, no manufacturer has anything like it at this point.

.

Petie53 wrote in post #18873122
All this discussion is why I now prefer my 70-300L! Sure is compact, light weight and a nice compromise to my 100-400L II or something shorter.

53.
I have only shot once with the 70-300 L IS. It was mid span high above the Delaware River. It was my friends lens as we swapped out for my 70-200 f/4 L IS. Yes the extra reach was nice, image quality was great, but I was pleasantly surprised how much lighter it was than either the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS or the 100-400 L IS II. I was impressed.

.

Nick5 wrote in post #18873423
..... It was mid span high above the Delaware River.

.
The Delaware River?! . . Philly 'burbs?!

I'm from there, and return frequently to visit my folks. . In fact, I'm heading back there again next week.

What part of the suburbs are you in? . I'm from Bucks & Montgomery Counties, and have spend hundreds of days canoeing and fishing on the Delaware.

.

Really depends on your shooting needs. I have 16-35, 24-70, 80, 100 macro, 70-200 and 150-600 to cover all of my needs pretty much. Prior to 150-600, I used to have 100-400 for birding and wildlife. With 100-400, I always felt the frustration of wanting more reach, so I sold it and got the 150-600. I never missed it since.

I was in Namibia with a 17-55 f2.8 and the Canon 100-400 II, which really turned out to be a great combo. Used the 100-400 for wildlife and a 70-200 would have been too short for a lot of it.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18873426
.

.
The Delaware River?! . . Philly 'burbs?!

I'm from there, and return frequently to visit my folks. . In fact, I'm heading back there again next week.

What part of the suburbs are you in? . I'm from Bucks & Montgomery Counties, and have spend hundreds of days canoeing and fishing on the Delaware.

.

Tom.
Delaware County myself.

I lived in King of Prussia for years and miss the park there. Great place to shoot birds and deer.

I have a messenger bag that will hold the lenses and a body, and only pack one long lens of the two depending on what I am shooting. The other two lens compartments will hold fast lenses or even mirrorless bodies/lenses depending on what I am shooting. If I ever need everything, I have a pelican roller case.