Printable View
Hey all,
From the title the question is fairly obvious. From what I have seen the package of the 70-200 is about the same price as the 100-400. The lens is for wildlife and action shots of sport.
Would love to hear your thoughts
Thanks very much in advance,
Edd
What camera are you shooting with? With most you are not going to be able to auto focus. With a 1.4X extender your max aperture would be f/5.6, but at 2X you loss two stops wich puts your max aperture at f/8, and most cameras will not auto fucus. If you have a 1D series you would be OK, but you are going to sacrifice a lot of shutter speed. Considering you want to use it for sports and wildlife, I do not think you want to sacrifice that much light (shutter speed). If you were looking at the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, then maybe it would be worth it, but the cost goes up a lot. Basically, the 100-400 may be better choice, and with wild life, the 200 mm is kind of short. Are you planning on shooting over 200mm a lot?
Despite its age, the 100-400 is a far better option. With the 2x extender on the 70-200 f/4 you'll lose AF with all but 1 series bodies. And at a max aperture of f/8, you'll struggle to stop action. And the IQ at 400mm with the extender will be worse than the 100-400 at 400mm (not to mention a stop slower).
As others have mentioned the 70-200 f4 plus 2x combo will not autofocus on anything but a 1 series body. That is a deal breaker for me. However it is a more modern design with better IS and weather sealing. The 70-200mm f2.8 will autofocus, but it is much more expensive.
How often do you plan to go above 200mm?
I have recently been trying to figure out the best/reasonably economical way to add some reach for wildlife and I think the 100-400 is the way I will end up going. Here's my thought process.
100-400:
Pros: Very versatile focal range without changing gear, reasonable price for 400mm, good IQ over the range, IS
Cons: Relatively slow at the wide end, older 2-stop IS, not completely weather sealed
300mm f4 + 1.4 TC:
Pros: Relatively fast at 300mm, autofocus works on all bodies with the TC attached, good IQ, constant physical length, reasonable price, IS
Cons: Limited to 300mm and 420mm, old 2-stop IS, not completely weather sealed, gear change to get to 420mm
70-200 f2.8 + 2x TC:
Pros: Amazing IQ 70-200, good with TCs attached, up to 4-stop IS, weather sealed, constant physical length, fast
Cons: Expensive, gear change to get to 400mm, IQ at 400mm not as good as the 100-400 see link
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=5&APIComp=0
The 70-200/2.8L IS II can take a 2x TC pretty well, but I'd be reluctant to use one on any other zoom lens.
If you need 400mm routinely, get the 100-400L - it's an excellent lens.
I know people are quick to discount the 70-300L because of the variable aperture, and the dreaded f/5.6 on the long end, but it's not actually THAT slow. A reason to discount it is if you do need the 400mm (you seem pretty eager to get to 400mm somehow), or you can afford the f/2.8 lenses. Compared to the 70-200mm lenses f/4, I'd rather take the 70-300L, but everyone's reasons and needs are different.
I'm not pulling up the review to get the exact numbers, but it breaks down something like:
f/4.0 - 70-112 - Same speed as the 70-200.
f/4.5 - 113-154 - Slightly slower than the 70-200, fairly insignificant.
f/5.0 - 155-224 - 2/3s of a stop slower, which is significant, but only over 45mm of range. The 200-225 range is infinitely faster.
f/5.6 - 225-300 - The dreaded f/5.6, a full stop slower!, but on a focal range the 70-200 doesn't even have, so this is actually a plus.
Apparently Sigma 1.4x extenders do work with the 70-300L, but I have not tried it.
It's cheap, sharp, has a newer 4-stop IS, has some weather resistance. It does extend as you zoom, if that puts you off.
I like your breakdown David. Valid points, and sometimes f5 is needed to get enough in focus at the range anyway.
Cheers everyone, decision made!!!