Canon 70-200 Vs Canon 100-400. Please suggest!

Hi All,

As I am buying my first L series lens I want to make sure I buy something which I will not regret for years to come.

I do not enjoy capturing people except for family occasions. I am very much interested in wild life and love to picture the animals in their natural habitat.

So first I was considering Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM + TX 2 (Eff 140-400 f/5.6)

The other option is Canon 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I was considering the 70-200 over 100-400 as with 2x it gives me the same range at the same aperture.
And for other photography I am interested in Sunrise,Sunset,Beach,M​onuments etc. Here I thought 70-200 will give me edge in terms of optical quality.

Please suggest.

moat people would say you buy the lens for the intent you will use it most. for birds and wildlife, that is the 100-400.

what body and other lenses do you have?

If wildlife and birds are your primary subjects, get the 100-400, no question. If your interest is wildlife and birds but you mostly get the opportunity to shoot beach, monument, dusk stuff then what other lens do you have, and what doesn't it do for you on those subjects?

Actually I am in the middle of a deal for 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for $1300 but when I asked my self how often will it satisfy me with the TX2 for wild life photography as I read that the optical quality goes down drastically in this set up though the effective range is same as that of 100-400. So this post.

Till now I was using the KIT lenses and was able to get some good pictures to my satisfaction.

But as I learned more details of photography I realized the limitations of my KIT lenses so I added Prime Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II to my existing Canon EF 18-55mm and EF-S 55-200.

I have EOS 400D and will shortly buya 550D/7D depending on the suggestions from the pros here
(Expect a post on this topic from me in near future)

I have a 7D and just picked up the Dust Pump last week for a sweet deal (925CDN shipped), and have been very happy with it, as it is my first L. You will immediately notice the difference.

However, I don't use it as anything but a birding/wildlife/astro​nomy lens. I don't do sports so that's out. I'll be picking up a 70-200 (f/4 or f/2.8) IS in the coming months, it's just a very useful FL and by all accounts it seems to be a great lens.

The 70-200 2.8 IS + the 1.4x is a nice combo. The 2x converter isn't great unless paired with the best telephoto primes.

Phil

forget the converter...GO BIG 100-400

tcssas wrote in post #9914889
Actually I am in the middle of a deal for 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for $1300 but when I asked my self how often will it satisfy me with the TX2 for wild life photography as I read that the optical quality goes down drastically in this set up though the effective range is same as that of 100-400. So this post.

Till now I was using the KIT lenses and was able to get some good pictures to my satisfaction.

But as I learned more details of photography I realized the limitations of my KIT lenses so I added Prime Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II to my existing Canon EF 18-55mm and EF-S 55-200.

I have EOS 400D and will shortly buya 550D/7D depending on the suggestions from the pros here
(Expect a post on this topic from me in near future)

Doesn't sound like going 70-200 rather than 100-400 will really give you any advantages. Better save up and fill in the sub-100 mm range with one or another of Canon's high end mid-range zooms later. And once you've covered the ends of the range, it'll be time enough to get the 70-200.

Just think of the range that you use most. If it is the 200-400mm than get the Canon 100-400 lens, but if you prefer the range below 200mm than get the 70-200. If you are trying a converter than get the 1.4x, there is practically no loss in image quality with that one. But it will still give you 280mm instead of 400 with the other lens.

I used a 70-200 f/4L non-IS w/ a 1.4 TC most of last year to shoot lacrosse. I was please with it, but even @ 280mm, I felt it needed a bit more reach, and a 2x TC was not an option. I was seriously considering a Canon 100-400, but decided to try a Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6. I got it from Amazon, and they offered a 30-day return policy. It just came yesterday, and I took it to the shore when we went. Got home late last night, so I haven't done anything w/ the images yet. I will be taking it out to shoot a couple of lacrosse games today. I'll post up my thoughts and some pictures as soon as I can.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some big, white lenses! However, @ $1300 for a used Canon 100-400 and $900 for a new Sigma 120-400, I had to give the Sigma a shot. While I don't have a 100-400 to use for direct comparison, if the IQ on the Sigma is as good as my 70-200 (with or w/o the 1.4 TC), that will probably be good enough for me.

Flat out, for your stated desire, the 100-400. I've had the 100-400 for about 6mo now and only JUST picked up the 70-200 2.8 MkII. While I think that the MkII is the best PERFORMING lens I've ever used, if I'm going looking for wildlife I guarantee that it will not be what's mounted to my camera.

I hope to TRY the 2x on my 70-200 just for curiosity, sometime, but when considering a lens for those purposes I would make the decision based on lens only; not whether you can use a teleconverter with it.

I find that the 100-400 is much more of a "specialised" lens. It is superb for motorsports on a modest budget, particularly when used with a good quality 1.4x converter. However it does not lend itself so well to general purpose photography in the way the 70-200 does.

The bottom line is they are very different and which one would make the most sense very much depends on the user. I had a 70-200 long before I exchanged a Sigma 170-500 for the "Dust Pump".

I'd encourage you to get a 1.4x converter anyway, whichever way you jump, it makes the kit you have a lot more flexible. But do get a good one, there are many cheap and nasty products out there that will never satisfy you.

I have both lenses and would recomend the 100-400 over the 70-200 + 2x TC for wildlife because of generally better image quality and I believe faster focus. The 70-200+ 2x TC can produce images close in quality to the 100-400, but overall it's not as good. The push pull design of the 100-400 is better in my opinion than the twist type for action zooming. I actually bought the 70-200 after owning the 100-400 thinking it and a 2x could replace the 100-400 and be more versatile, but after trying the 70-200 it just stays home.

The 70-200/MkII with a 1.4x converter will produce a slightly better image than the 100-400 @ 300mm. With a 2x converter, the 100-400 wins, but not with a huge margin.

With the 70-200 MkI the 100-400 wins by a big margin. In addition you have the option of adding a converter to the 100-400. It willruin the IQ but on occasion it may be worth it to get 800mm.

I chose the 100-400 over the 70-200 as I wanted to shoot wildlife and sports shots and felt the extra length would be more beneficial for me. The 70-200 2.8 will probably be my next lens purchase though.