70-200 or 100-400 lens?

[GSPhoto]

I'm debating if I should get the 70-200mm F/2.8L IS or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM. I would get the faster 70-200 if i go with that, but i don't know if the extra 200mm is going to be needed. I do take a lot of nature and sunsets, but should I go with the 70-200 and go with the 300mm 4.0L later.

[Stephen Probert]

I don't know about the extra 200mm, but if you are doing nature shots and sunset, then you might want to consider the 70-200 f/4 IS lens. The lens is SO sharp, even at f/4, sharper than the f/2.8 judging by Bryan's ISO crops, and the IS is newer giving an extra stop of hand-holdability (making the hand-holdability of the two lenses equal). Given that the subjects you intend to shoot are not moving (animal subjects excluded) and you may need to carry your equipment a distance to get to your shots, you might appreciate the reduced weight (50%) of the f/4 compared to the f/2.8 since you don't need the action-stopping f/2.8.


Good luck.

[Bryan Carnathan]

If you are shooting birds and other animals, it seems that you never have enough focal length - the 100-400 would be my choice. 400mm can really bring a sunset in nicely as well.


As Stephen mentioned, the 70-200 f/4 L IS is a great lens. It is relatively small and makes a great landscape lens.


The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is also a great lens. I use it much more frequently for people and sports - especially in low light situations. It can stop action in 1/2 as much light as the f/4 versions can.

[Tony Printezis]

Bryan and Stephen covered most of what I wanted to say! Also, don't forget that you'd be able to use the 1.4x extender on the 70-200 (either version) to get some extra reach when you need it.


Tony

[EdN]

I have the 70-200 IS F4 L and I'm quite pleased with it. It's compact, light weight, and has excellent IQ. I also debated purchasing the 100-400 L but declined for two reasons. I did not like the push-pull zoom and a lot of user reviews comment on softness at the long end wide open. What I did instead was to purchase the 300 F4 L which had rave reviews for sharpness and image qualities. This is what I principally use for wildlife and bird photography. The focus is also quite fast. I also purchased the 1.4X extender over the 2.0X extender because most reviews say there is no image quality loss. It works with both the 70-200 IS F4 and 300 F4 L. For wildlife stuff, the 1.4 is mounted on the 300 F4 L most of the time.

[Tom Alicoate]

For me 200mm isn't enough for most wildlife outside of a zoo. The 70-200 is much more versatile for everyday, and the f4 version is small enough to not attract too much attention at an indoor event. Push pull isn't such a big deal for the 100-400, it works well, just takes a little getting used to. I have the 70-200f4 for everyday stuff, and I rent the 100-400 when I go out west for wildlife photography. Of course the 100-400 is not 2.8, and with animals out early morning and late night, I am always looking for something which is faster. I would suggest IS, I miss having it on my 70-200.


Tom

[greggf]

I think that I would go with 70-200 f4 IS if I were you. It is a fantastic lens, focuses extremely fast, is sharp wide open, and has a 4 stop IS...hard to beat combination. Here is a sunset just taken with 5D Mark ll and said lens( iso 200, 70mm, 5.6 at 1/125)./cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/Aptos-Sunset_2D00_0449-_5B00_800x600_5D00_.jpg

[EdN]

Wow! That's a really nice shot!

[Fabricio]

I think the 70-200 is a better lens. I think is one of those lenses that one will use in every ocation. I think the 100-400 is the cheapest way o get a 400mm lens. I will get the 100-400 when I need that range.

[bob williams]

I do own a 100-400 and find that it is on my camera more than any other lens. Its crisp and clear---especially if tripod mounted--- and yields great landscape/sunset/sunrise colors. Like Brian says, it seems like you never have enough reach when shooting animals. It is heavy and has the slide zoom which takes getting used too. But its well worth it. Like you, I like the idea of a faster lens, so for me the 70-200L 2.8 IS is next on my list.

[Anthony]

I think the 100-400 is the cheapest way o get a 400mm lens.






Actually, the 400mm f/5.6 L is about $150 cheaper (though you loose zoom and IS).

[Bill M.]

I have the 100-400mm and I love it, it gives you so much versatility if you have pretty good light. I usually have the 24-105mm and 100-400mm together when I want a broad range of coverage. What everyone is saying about the 70-200mm f4 IS is also true though. Tack sharp lens with very effective IS and definately lighter than the 2.8 IS (Although weight generally doesn't bother me that much) I only use the 2.8 when I know I'm going to be shooting primarily indoors or in very poor light where I need the fastest zoom I can get.


The 70-200mm with a teleconverter is an option, but in my opinion, your taking a bit of IQ away and at that point, the 70-200 combo isn't going to be that much sharper than the 100-400. I've haven't had the opportunity to use the 300mm f4 but I think I value the versatility that the 100-400 gives me more than the extra sharpness of the 300mm for nature shots. Also, if you are using a crop camera body, as Bryan noted in his review of the 100-400mm, you would have to shell out a lot more to get a prime lens to compete with the 640mm 5.6 lens your getting with the 100-400mm.

[Don Burkett]

Just to chime in I have both the 70-200 f/4 and the 100-400 both are great lens but the 100-400 is on my camera more. I don't know what other lens you have but in my case I also own the 24-105 so the 70-200 is completely overlapped. I still carry and use the 70-200 because at 100 it's better than the 24-105 and it's faster than than the 100-400 and that's handy when you need it. But, with a crop camera I don't find myself in the 100-200 range very often. When I need a tele it's usually in the 200-400 range and thus the 100-400 is the telezoom I reach for.

[EdN]

I've got the 70-200 F4 IS and I do use it with the 1.4 X extender. Canon's brochure and reviews say that there is very little loss in image quality. I haven't done any tests myself other than to occasionally pixel peep but I really don't see much degradation using the extender. What I've read about the 2x extender is that it's not as good so I stayed away from that one.


The combination of 70-200 F4 IS and the 1.4X extender is a pretty compact, lightweight,and discrete package to take out for shoots.


Since then, I have also purchased the 300 F4 L IS and I use it principally for wildlife. In that application, the 1.4 X is attached to it most of the time and I find I really don't need to pack the 70-200.


So depending on what I'm doing, I've been able to assemble "mission packages" for whatever type of outing I'm doing. There's some places where packing the 300 F4 makes it stand out in a crowd while the 70-200 F4 keeps a low profile.


I didn't plan in the beginning to purchase these items but it's actually worked out pretty well. High quality all the way and also pretty flexible.

[Dallasphotog]

I own a lot of different lens and I really love my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. I use the 2.0x converter on rare occasions to increase my reach, but normally the 70-200 is enough. I have an XT, XTi and a 1D mkII and the 70-200 works beautifully on all three. I'm sure the 100-400 is nice optically, but the push-pull zoom is just not my cup of tea.