EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM •OR• EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Please Advise

Hi,

I just ordered the Canon EF 24-105 IS, and am desperately trying to decide between the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM for more reach.

I have a Digital Rebel XT and I do allot of long trail runs & fast paced hikes (so the camera is usually in a Camelback). Im looking for some advice as to which might deliver the best results for quick hand held wildlife/nature shots. I mention that Im jogging because Im sure allot of you who regularly shoot birds and wildlife are probably very patient (with tripods and monopods) and set out to get those great shots, where In my application its the reverse (should something of interest come up I take out the gear). Of course the lens would have many other uses, and as I develop my photography skills I will likely be doing similarly, but currently this would be its main reason for joining my bag. Or am I insane to think I could achieve any success with either in a rapid auto-hand held situation?

Obviously 100-400 has greater reach but which is the better lens (and "IS") for my current application?

Many thanks!

Well for doing nature/birding you cant go past the 100-400, the 70-200 just wouldnt cut it for distance. THe 100-400 is a brilliant lens if you get a good copy. But even if you dont u can always send it in to get recalibrated, though you dont spend $1500 and expect to do that.

How about the SIgma 100-300mm f/4, great optics, decent reach and a lot cheaper!

Use both? They are for very different things.

I was in a similar situation and opted for the 100-400. My circumstances are quite different as I wanted the 24-105 as my travel, walkaround and the 100-400 for birding and wildlife. I also looked at the Sigma 80-400 OS which was very tempting and a few hundred less--about $1k. OS is their version of IS and it seemed to work as well. AF was a fair amount slower, however.

JuZ wrote in post #2753065
How about the SIgma 100-300mm f/4, great optics, decent reach and a lot cheaper!

I looked into Sigma but correct me if Im wrong, that one has no IS (or OS) and I need hand held ability...

cosworth wrote in post #2753078
Use both? They are for very different things.

Well along with my (soon to come) 24-105L having both a 70-200 & a 100-400 seems like a large overlap to me (and my budget allows for either or

Between those two, I would get a 100-400L for its versatility and reach

Thanks for all the feedback!!! Im heavily leaning towards the 100-400

For nature and wildlife type shots...the 100-400 is probably going to work much better for you.