100-400 vs. 70-200/2.8L IS mk1 vs. 70-200/4 IS

I'm having trouble deciding which lens to purchase next. It will likely be purchased used. My passion is nature photography, but I also shoot quite a bit in low light and love my f2.8 lenses. I will probably be going to Costa Rica next spring and may be shooting in the rain forest, which would seem ideal for the 70-200/2.8 IS. So, which would you pick if you were me? [:)] Hopefully I'll have both the 100-400 and 70-200/2.8 in about two years, so I'm really just picking which one to buy first.


Also, if anyone would mind sharing some pictures taken with the 70-200/2.8 IS ver1 and the 2x extender, that would be appreciated, too.


Thankyou!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan

My passion is nature photography

---

Which one you get first should depend on what part of nature photography you consider most important. If it's wildlife (the more reach, the better), definitely go for the 100-400. Otherwise get one of the 70-200 lenses, because they are much better than the 100-400 in the overlapping range. As for f/2.8 vs f/4, that's a difficult trade-off between cost and flexibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan

Also, if anyone would mind sharing some pictures taken with the 70-200/2.8 IS ver1 and the 2x extender, that would be appreciated, too.

---

70-200 f/2.8 L IS + 2X TC @ 400mm f/5.6 vs 100-400 @ 400mm f/5.6


70-200 f/4 L IS @ 100mm f/4.5 vs 100-400 @ 100mm f/4.5

In the rainforest (I've trekked through them on two continents, so far...), light is often dim - you'll want f/2.8. Also, you're going to the rainforest - and the100-400mm is not a weather-sealed lens (and the push-pull zoom mechanism may suck the mist right in), whereas the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens has weather-sealing. The Canon teleconverters are also weather-sealed.

I would suggest reading this article on costa rica that seems to line up with what neuroanatomist has to say:


http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles-nature/travel_photo_notes_from_the_world.htm#costa rica

This was tough for me. I voted for the 70-200 2.8 IS for your scenario.


I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 100-400. The truth is, if I could only have one I'd probably take the 100-400. It is just too versitle.


I usually don't find myself needing fast apertures at this length and the 100-400 gives a really sharp image, especially under 300mm.


I've actually been kicking around the idea selling my 70-200 and buying the 85 1.2 II, since I mostly use the 70-200 for portraits. It is tough giving up such a great lens. I just don't use it that much.

I just went through a similar decision: I'm travelling to Costa Rica and Peru this spring and was trying to decide what lenses to bring. For the rain forest I thought the 70-200 would be the ideal focal length (and I'll probably bring the 1.4 extender to add a little reach if necessary). I went with the f4 though, but mainly for $$ reasons (but the extra size/weight can be an issue if you plan to do much hiking...it gets very hot & humid in the rainforest [:P]). As for the 100-400,the range is great for any wildlife, butI wouldn't want to use a push/pull zoom in any humid/misty place.


Myrecomendation is to go with the 70-200 (and maybe pair it with a tele for more reach and not much extra weight).


Stephen

Thanks, everyone. [:)] It looks like the 70-200/2.8 IS is the way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan

Thanks, everyone. [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img] It looks like the 70-200/2.8 IS is the way to go.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Before you bite, I'd look at what Nate has done with the 400 f5.6. I know that's not one of your picks, but the value compared to the 70-200 f2.8 IS for wildlife photography wouldhave to make itmy overwhelming choice.


When photographing things that run away when you get close or can only be seen from a distance, the longer focal length the better....IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Before you bite, I'd look at what Nate has done with the 400 f5.6. I know that's not one of your picks, but the value compared to the 70-200 f2.8 IS for wildlife photography wouldhave to make itmy overwhelming choice.


When photographing things that run away when you get close or can only be seen from a distance, the longer focal length the better....IMHO.

---

I totally agree with you, but I deal with low light often, too, so I want something either fast or with IS (or both). Thanks, though!

Here ya go.......Try, Try again........ A very good article from Bob Atkins.


In stock at Adorama Looks like the best of both worlds. I'd have to add a 1.4 TC.