Why 70-200 f/2.8 IS? Why not 100-400L Everything?

Hello, just got my 70-200mm f/4L a few days ago and I LOVE it!!! Such a great lens, but it's definately lacking on the long end. I thought 200mm would be more than enough for me, but nope!

Anyway, I'm just wondering why anyone would spend 1700 bucks on a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens when they can get the 100-400L for 300 less? If I could afford it, I'd be buying myself a 100-400 from bh right now! I've been shooting sports with the 70-200 and I simply don't have the reach I need!

So, just curious, what are the advantages, and disadvantages of having either lens? I notice a lot of people buy both.... $3100.00 together.... why? One lens for indoor sports, one for far away outdoor?

Oh, and, should I drop 300 on a 1.4x t-con for my 70-200 f/4? Or would that be totally stupid with this lens?

I hope this all makes sense... kind of just blurted that out...

why, because of one extra f stop.
I own a 100-400, but can't use it inside, especially at longer focal lengths, it is just too slow. One the other hand, I've used the 70-200 indoors with available light, and nothing beats it at those focal lengths.

Ooooh yea, that's what I thought. So, for me, buying a 70-200 f/2.8 IS would be stupid huh? Cause I always shoot f/4-f/11 and never shoot anything indoors. (Not yet at least).

Well optically the 70-200 will be better, within its range, than the 100-400 but the 100-400 is still a damn fine lens so that advantage isn't as big as the speed one.

Lastly, the 70-200 is just easier to handle.

Basically the only reason to get the 100-400 is the 200-400 part of the range. And thats a pretty big reason.

Yea, definately, and then throw in a 1.4x t-con and it's the same price as the 70-200L IS with a focal lenth of 560mm.

Do you think I would even have a need for my 70-200 f/4L if I got the 100-400L? There's only a 30mm dif there. I shoot sports, medium and small size wild life.... hmmm it is useless huh? Unless I upgrade to the f/2.8 version at the same time I get the 100-400L. Then it could be used as my indoor what ever lens, and the 400L would be the outdoor stuff lens.

Meh, so much to think about huh?

The 70-200 f/2.8 is faster and it's faster. The 70-200 are fastest focusing telezooms you can get, maybe even the fastest of all zooms period.

For me it was a no brainer, 70-200 f/2.8 (No IS) is usable everywhere, slap on a tcon and get the extra reach for outdoor use. It's just more versatile. I can even go get a used 300 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6 on the side and I end up paying slightly more for even more versatility.

BTW I paid $80 for a mint Tcon 1.4 version I, which is optically the same as II, even Canon says so. You can find them if you look hard enough. Hey if you shoot sports, you have absolutely no use for IS, why not get the non-IS version? It's much cheaper, then get a long prime, which will have superior focusing speed and better image quality. It will cost a little more then as getting an IS version.

Hm, thanks for the information. The superior AF is what I figured made them so expensive copared to lenses like the 100-400L. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS has faster AF than the non IS 70-200 f/2.8 right?

And why would you say I don't need IS for sports shooting? I've sort of noticed it myself since I've been getting sharp pics hand held with my 70-200 f/4, but I'm just curious why that is. I don't shoot with a tripod or monopod at all yet, so wouldn't the IS be beneficial? Give me sharper pics?

its generally accepted that you dont need IS for sports as you tend to use shutter speeds faster than what would induce camera shake, which is what IS corrects


The 70-200 F2.8L IS is significantly faster both in aperture and autofocus speed, and sharper than the 100-400....thats why its the same price (ish) yet so little range compared (and yes i've used both)

Tom.

Ok, no the AF on the 2.8 are all the same, they seem more crisp then the f/4 but even then it's too close to call. I would say all the 70-200 lenses have the same AF. They are all faster then the 100-400. I dont think that they are much faster but the 100-400 seems to hunt more then the 70-200, thats the differnce.

IS corrects hand shake and suttle movements, but when you have a subject moving fast, it's not what IS is intended for and will have no effect. IS is there to stabalize you. A great example could be tennis. On a serve the racket moves at an extreme rate, IS will not freeze the action, that's a job for the shutter.

I would also say yes, the 70-200 is sharper, how much is arguable, but to be honest, when you get into that range of quality, the differnce is so minimal that there is no point saying one is better because both are more then good enough and will never be an issue.

The 70-200/2.8L also has the newer IS, which is much smoother than the old IS.

I would imagine the 100-400 hunts more with AF because it's at the limit of what the D series can focus with, f/5.6.

The 70-200/2.8s also works better with the t-cons. On a D series camera you will mostly be manually focusing the 100-400 with a t-con, but with the 70-200/2.8L IS you can have a 100-280 f/4 IS with the 1.4x and not lose much sharpness at all, and with the 2x extender you have a 140-400 f/5.6 IS, all combinations retaining AF and IS.

Phil is right, you can risk damage to the 100-400 with the tcon on a D series. You have to MF, but you can tape some contacts and get AF, unfortunatly it will hunt in anything darker then bright outdoor conditions and will put lots of stress on the AF motor.

However, the 100-400 is much sharper in its niche of 200-400 then the 70-200 + tcon. Anyway, IS or not, I think the 2.8 models of the 70-200 are fantatstic.

Well for me, I hope to add the EF 70-200 f/2.8 for its range to cover the gaps I have in my lenses before I start to look at some of the primes. What a great people lens, especially for indoor shots, blending into the background and letting people be themselves. The EF 100-400 L is the lens I use for it's reach when in the field. Wildlife addiction, what can I say?

Phil,

Thanks for your post. I am forever trying to remember which lenses maintain their AF capability when used with the Tcons. Can you point me to a place that can compreshensively explain which of Canons lenses can use Tcons, including a yes/no answer to the AF or MF with the specific lens/tcon combo. Hope I am making some sense here.

Thanks in advance,

--gmaize

Thanks everyone! And pcasciola your post is especially helpful!

So I definately want that 400mm, because 200mm doesn't cut it for the bird photography that I'm into. You say the 70-200 f/2.8 versions will retain AF with either extenders?

So, would it be a good idea to get a 70-200 f/2.8 non IS and a 2x t-con? Then I'd have a close range sports lens, and a wild life lens in one, but how much would a 2x t-con degrade the image quality? I would suppose a lot, and how much would it slow down the AF? This interests me since the combo would be the same price as the 100-400L.

Also, I'm curious about the size difference between all three lenses. The f/4, f/2.8 and f/2.8 IS. Looking at measurements on bh, there seems to be a pretty significant difference. So, does anyone have any photographs of the three lenses side by side or something for comparison?

The 100-400L will almost definitely be sharper than the 70-200 + 2x extender. With the 1.4x they are probably pretty close.

The 70-200/4L is a lot smaller and lighter than the 2.8L IS version. I'd like to have both someday so I don't have to lug around the heavier one when I don't need it.

Here's the f/4 and the 2.8L side by side:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx