Will Canon 70-200 f2.8 III offer similar IQ to Canon 100-400 II? Better than Tamron G2?

Shot a XC meet yesterday with the Canon 100-400L II and every time I take it out, I am always blown away by how well this lens renders photos. Even in my amateur hands, it just has "something" about it.

Anyway, I don't have a Canon 70-200L II or III but for those of you who do or have both, do you feel it gives equal or better photos than the 100-400L? I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 and I do feel like it gives really nice images but if I am truthful, I don't think they are quite as good as the 100-400. To be fair, the 70-200 does get used in more where the lighting conditions are tougher, needing a wider aperture so I don't know that I can say I have shot them in the same setting, side by side, with the same apertures.

Just something I though of when going through the photos today.

duckster wrote in post #19130579
Shot a XC meet yesterday with the Canon 100-400L II and every time I take it out, I am always blown away by how well this lens renders photos. Even in my amateur hands, it just has "something" about it.

Anyway, I don't have a Canon 70-200L II or III but for those of you who do or have both, do you feel it gives equal or better photos than the 100-400L? I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 and I do feel like it gives really nice images but if I am truthful, I don't think they are quite as good as the 100-400. To be fair, the 70-200 does get used in more where the lighting conditions are tougher, needing a wider aperture so I don't know that I can say I have shot them in the same setting, side by side, with the same apertures.

Just something I though of when going through the photos today.

70-200 f/2.8 is a bit better than 100-400 II. Obviously due to the smaller zoom range.
Both lenses are the gems. Depends on what your need/objective is.
One is meant more for indoors and event photography mainly.
The other one being more for outdoor.

I find the 100-400 II a lot more versatile than the 70-200 2.8 II. The 70-200 II needs a more attention to getting focus whereas the 100-400 II seems to be less work in that respect. The bokeh of course is a lot creamier on the 70-200 2.8 II.

I have both. The 70-200 is a good portrait lens (amongst other things) which I use a lot at weddings but for sports and wildlife the 100-400 is preferable.

Every time I use the 100-400, I am just reminded about how clean the images are. I mainly use my Tamron 70-200 for times when lighting is a issue. It is good but I don't think the photos I get with it are as clean/sharp as the 100-400. I might have to rent a Canon 70-200 sometime just for comparison.

The first image is from the 100-400, the second from the Tamron 70-200, both similar type images of the race start. Different locations and lighting conditions, obviously

Maybe the framing is a little more similar on this one

I have both as well, the Canon 100-400 ii and Canon 70-200 ii. The 70-200 is just a tiny tiny bit sharper on my Canon 5D4. I have never used the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2 so I have no reference for comparison to that lens.

buying one lens over the other for "sharpness" is a fool's pursuit. they are different lenses for different uses but can share some duties. if you need 400mm or f2.8 the choice is obvious.

Both are great lenses, but buy the one that fits your needs. The 100-400 II is more versatile than the previous version because of the IS and improved sharpness but it still won't replace what a 70-200 2.8 II can do.

Heya,

You either need 70mm and F2.8 or you need 400mm.

The alternative would be the 70-200 F4L IS or similar, if you wanted a light, sharp, fast outdoor lens that can go wider at 70mm.

If you do not need F2.8 and you're ok with 100mm as the minimum instead of 70mm, then it makes a lot of sense to work with the 100-400 ranges for what you're shooting.

I've done this a lot too recently, but I used a 300mm F4L IS and a 70-200 F2.8L IS and I have a 150-600mm as well. With little kids, like mine, the 70-200 and 300 have been more useful. I've really gotten used to just taking the 70-200 because I very often need the 70mm end for when I'm near the finish line. That said, I think a 100-400 would do fine here too, because the difference of 70mm or 100mm isn't terribly huge, unless you're on APS-C or APS-H, but on full frame, it's not tremendous. I'm also always in lower light when shooting, so I appreciate the F2.8, though thinner depth of field can lead to things being out of focus when they get closer, so I often stop down to F4 for closer range shooting.

Very best,

I am fortunate to own both the 70-200 IS II and 100-400 II, and would never sell either one. They are two very different tools, and I find them to be equally sharp.

If I absolutely HAD to sell one, I would keep the 100-400 II and bump up the ISO when needed to make up the 2 stop difference.

Indoor sports I have to use 70-200 f2.8 due to low lighting.

I have both; almost never use the 70-200 II, but boy, when I need it I'm ecstatic to have it in my arsenal. If shot at overlapping focal lengths, at the same aperture, I might be tempted to give the 70-200 a *slight* nod, but both deliver rock solid results every time.

TBH, at these sizes, it looks like you may be being a bit too harsh on your Tammy, though.

I appreciate all the comments so far....Thanks

For my needs I will eventually get the Canon 70-200 F 2.8 iii after reading online information.
https://www.grantatkin​son.com …i-plus-2x-ef-iii-extender
I have not had the opportunity to fully try the Tamron 70-200 f 2.8 G2 though only a rental display model at the camera store.
I do not own the Canon 100-400mm to make a comparison either.
.