The IQ of the 70-200 f2.8L vs 100-400L

So I just picked up my new 100-400L from B and H and I've been messing around with it over the past couple of days. Being as how the nicest camera I've ever owned up to a couple of months ago was a $149 point and shoot, I'm blown away. A friend of mine has the 70-200 f2.8 and his pictures are amazing. We are both into taking ducks and wildlife pictures.

My question is, how do the two compare? I'm guessing the 70-200 will be better in low light situations but I'm curious as to the image quality during daylight hours. With plenty of light, will the 70-200 take nicer photos?

Technically, yes, the results are shaper from the 70-200.

As a practical matter, after post-processing and going to print, other than shallow depth-of-field you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

Sounds like your on the L path, and you'll own that 70-200 shortly anyway.

Enjoy!

Allagash wrote in post #7557095
So I just picked up my new 100-400L from B and H and I've been messing around with it over the past couple of days. Being as how the nicest camera I've ever owned up to a couple of months ago was a $149 point and shoot, I'm blown away. A friend of mine has the 70-200 f2.8 and his pictures are amazing. We are both into taking ducks and wildlife pictures.

My question is, how do the two compare? I'm guessing the 70-200 will be better in low light situations but I'm curious as to the image quality during daylight hours. With plenty of light, will the 70-200 take nicer photos?

the 70-200L should be sharper but not dramatically so. i have both the 100-400L and the 70-200L f4 IS. the shorter zoom is the sharpest zoom canon makes but images from the 100-400L are nearly as good .... .

ed rader

S.Horton wrote in post #7557125
Sounds like your on the L path, and you'll own that 70-200 shortly anyway.

Enjoy!

Yeah, I think I've been bitten by the L bug! It makes taking pictures so much more fun and interesting. It feels funny to be running around with a camera that only cost me $650 and lens that was more than double. I haven't been bitten by the upgraded camera bug yet....

Allagash wrote in post #7557153
Yeah, I think I've been bitten by the L bug! It makes taking pictures so much more fun and interesting. It feels funny to be running around with a camera that only cost me $650 and lens that was more than double. I haven't been bitten by the upgraded camera bug yet....

i understand exactly what you're saying. you always get these guys who talk about print size and how you can get equally as good 5x7 prints from the kit lens and i just gotta wonder how much fun they are having .

ed rader

Allagash wrote in post #7557153
Yeah, I think I've been bitten by the L bug! It makes taking pictures so much more fun and interesting. It feels funny to be running around with a camera that only cost me $650 and lens that was more than double. I haven't been bitten by the upgraded camera bug yet....

Glass before body. If you avoid EF-S lenses entirely, you'll be better off in the long run, because you can use them for any body in the future.

BTW, I think that it is normal to own a high multiple of cost in lenses vs. your bodies.

It's not so much the difference in "sharpness" between the two lenses as slightly superior color and contrast of the 70-200 f/2.8 that I notice...

I wish photozone would also rate color but if compare both lens they are almost identical in sharpness. The 70-200 manages vignetting a bit better, but the 100-400 manages chromatic aberrations a bit better. Of course then you have the 70-200 f/4IS. That has to be the sharpest tele-zoom Canon makes.

http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1