70-200f/4 vs. 100-400

hello all:


I am driving myself crazier trying to decide which lens to buy. My decisions were between the 70-200f/4 and the 100-400. Canon has now thrown the new70-300L into the mix. I had been told the 100-400 is basically used for objects that don't move, but I have seen some great bird shots, including the hummingbird in flight on the bird photo post on this site. I also have read the review for each lens.


I tried to view the photos from the other posts but for some reason most of the 100-400 photos were not able to be viewed.


I have a 7d that I know will magnify the lens 1.6x. I like the fact the 70-200 is lighter and with the f/4, it will help some withlower light , but the 400 has more reach.


I don't want to sacrifice a crisp photo





Any help will be great


naturac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naturac

I had been told the 100-400 is basically used for objects that don't move, but I have seen some great bird shots, including the hummingbird in flight on the bird photo post on this site.

---

Who told you that? The 100-400mm was practically made for things that move, the zoom range allows you to frame your subject as it moves in and out. It dosen't have the fastest apeture but with todays cameras in decent light it's sufficient. Unless you are trying to shoot low light action then it can be a problem.


From the intonation of your post it sounds like you are trying to shoot birds and need reach. The 100-400mm is far superior for that.The 400mmf/5.6 would beeven better but it's quite limiting for other uses.If you are using it for more of a general purposezoomthen a 70-200mm might make more sense, but a 100-400mm would be an excelent choice also. If you aregoing to mix someportriats a 70-200mm f/2.8non-IS or ISwould be you best choice. It would help a lot in low light also.


John.

Just a refresher, I don

Let me expound on my ignorance. Take an 8x10 picture and pretend it was taken with a full frame camera. Now rip a little over half of it off and throw it away. Ex-friends pic work real good for this. What you have left is what the crop sensor would have gotten standing in the same place with the same lens.

My two cents worth, since you are considering the 70-200 and the 100-400 and they are really different but can be used for similar purposes, would be to go for the 70-300mmL. This has the latest 4 stop IS, weather sealing, fantsatic image quality and would work great on the 7D. If you already had a 70-200 or a 100-400, then the 70-300mm is not worth considering.


But since you don

This question depends heavily on what you plan on primarily shooting. If its wildlife then obviously the 100-400 is the clear choice because you will want the most reach possible. If its more general purpose and low light then one of the 70-200mm lenses is what you should get.


Although, as Steve said, the 70-300 is also an excellent choice if you plan on doing a mix of things.


I have the 100-400 and love it, but of course I primarily photograph birds, so I needed the 400mm. The only limitation to it is low light use, but it does fine in most situations even with fast moving birds.


Nick

As for the throw-away/enlarge debate of crop sensors. Yes. Both. Take your 25MP fullframe image. Throw away half of it, and you have a 12.5MP image. But your 7D is 18MP, so obviously it's also enlarged too.


I'm similarly attempting to figure out my telephoto lens choices, and it's certainly not easy. I want long, high quality, fast, cheapish, light, and versatile... and that just doesn't exist. I'll confuse you further with my ramblings of lens choices, in case it helps you figure out what you're looking for.


100-400mm - older IS. Not as sharp as the latest lenses. Goes to 400mm, or further with manual focus + extender.
70-300mm - newer IS. Sharp. Only goes to 300mm. Potentially 420mm w/ a 3rd party extender and manual focus.
70-200mm f/4 - Good IS. Sharp. Only 200mm, but at F4. Can do 280mm w/ extender
70-200mm f/2.8 - No IS at the price range I'd be looking at. Decent sharpness. Only 200, but at F2.8. Can do 280@f/4 and 400@f/5.6


The 400 isn't fast, or the highest quality, though it's quite good
The 300 is high quality, but isn't fast, or quite as long, though it is light.
The 200f4 is sort of fast, and high quality, but not long or versatile (swapping extenders on and off isn't ideal). The only advantage this combo has over the 70-300 is the faster aperture, and I think the extender disadvantage overpowers that.
The 200f2.8 is fast, but not the top end image quality. Not long or versatile. Does the 2.8 advantage overcome the convenience of the reach you get with 70-300 or 100-400?


I'm not certain I need the 'fast' at the same time as 'long', so I was considering the 70-300, or 100-400 along with, say, a 200mm F/2.8. This would eliminate the extender use, and allow for fast and long. But, potentially, I could use an extender on the 200 and get 280 F/4, which would be a faster 300 than the 70-300 would give... which brings me to 200mm f/2.8, 1.4x Extender, 100-400mm. We've now we've left the area of cheap... though non of these would necessarily have to be purchased at the same time, softening the blow.


Sadly, the solution seems to be lottery tickets. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

Let me expound on my ignorance. Take an 8x10 picture and pretend it was taken with a full frame camera. Now rip a little over half of it off and throw it away. Ex-friends pic work real good for this. What you have left is what the crop sensor would have gotten standing in the same place with the same lens.

---

You are correct. Magnify would also be agood term to describe the affect of 1.6 crop cameras such as the 7D. I won't go into all the other things 1.6does to your images, that can get into a lengthy discussion[:P]


John.

To expand on what David has contributed, if I was starting out and looking for image quality and versatility, but also wanted something that was very good for birds, I would buy two lenses, I don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Magnify would also be agood term to describe the affect of 1.6 crop cameras such as the 7D.

---

I have to disagree with that. The 1.6x is not magnification, it's cropping. The subject doesn't get bigger with a 1.6x FOVCF sensor, rather, less of the background is visible. Take a 100mm macro lens, for example. At the minimum focus distance, it's delivering 1:1 magnification, regardless of the camera on which it's mounted. On a 1.6x crop body, it's still 100% life size, not 160% life size. The difference is, with a FF camera you can image nearly the full surface of a quarter, whereas with an APS-C camera you can't even image the full surface of a dime at 1:1. The same is true with distant subjects - put a 400mm lens on a FF and a crop body and take a picture of the same bird from the same distance, and that bird will cover the same physical area on both sensors. If you're going to argue that the crop sensor 'magnifies' because that bird covers more pixels on the crop sensor than on the FF sensor, that's a specious argument because if you follow that logic, you must also believe that a 60D is more 'magnified' than 40D, simply beacuse the pixels are smaller.


Was that a lengthy discussion? [8-|]


Back to the OP, really it comes down to what you're shooting. If shooting at 300mm on your 7D means you're still going to be heavily cropping your image in post, because your subject(s) are small - like birds - then you need all the focal length you can get, and a lens that goes to 400mm is better than a lens that goes to 300mm. If 300mm is long enough, the new 70-300mm L zoom looks like quite a nice lens. Personally, I'm quite happy with my 100-400mm on my 7D; I started with a 300mm f/4L IS prime, and found that I needed more reach. The only way to get more reach with out the image degradation resulting from a teleconverter, keep IS, and stay under $2000 is the 100-400mm.


So, if you don't mind the weight of the 100-400mm for your uses, and are shooting birds/wildlife, it's a great choice with a lot of versatility. If you don't need to get to 400mm, either the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or the 70-200mm f/4L IS would be good options, depending on whether you'd prioritze the extra 100mm or the faster aperture at the long end.


The 70-200mm f/4 and the 100-400mm lenses really have different purposes - the former is a general-purpose telephoto zoom, while the latter is a longer zoom lens most suitable for birds and wildlife. The 70-300mm is somewhat of a hybrid of the two, albeit a hybrid with great IQ, convenient dimensions, and nice features like weather sealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

But, potentially, I could use an extender on the 200 and get 280 F/4, which would be a faster 300 than the 70-300 would give... which brings me to 200mm f/2.8, 1.4x Extender, 100-400mm.

---

Let me throw one more thought at you - 100-400mm, 135mm f/2L, and perhaps the 1.4x. That combo gives you something you can't get from a zoom, a full stop faster f/2 aperture at 135mm, which is great for indoor action or outdoor portraits (a little long indoors on a crop body). You can add the TC to the prime and get 189mm f/2.8 with good IQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Let me throw one more thought at you - 100-400mm, 135mm f/2L, and perhaps the 1.4x. That combo gives you something you can't get from a zoom, a full stop faster f/2 aperture at 135mm, which is great for indoor action or outdoor portraits (a little long indoors on a crop body). You can add the TC to the prime and get 189mm f/2.8 with good IQ.

---

That is a good suggestion. I'm not sure though. I've already got the 85mm f/1.8, so I've got a fast portrait lens. I think the 135mm is too close to the 85mm, it's not really changing what I can shoot.The 200mm would be a different enough focal length that I could justify using a different lens rather than walking, and I'd get full speed AF at that further distance.


Again, the lottery is the solution. I'd get both the 135mm, the 200mm, as well as both the 70-300 and 100-400, as well as a series of very long primes, and a crew to carry them for me. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

The 200mm would be a different enough focal length that I could justify using a different lens rather than walking, and I'd get full speed AF at that further distance.

---

Makes sense. I just find it difficult to justify a prime when there's a zoom that covers the same focal length and aperture, and has the benefit of IS thrown in. But with the way lens prices are going, a lottery win would certainly come in handy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

The 1.6x is not magnification, it's cropping.

---

Yes, but magnifying in the sense ofperimage or printsize rather than pixel size. You crop the imageso your image is enlarged or magnified, sort of like using a longer lens except not. I understand your point about 60D magnifying an image more than a 40D. Mabye I'm wrong in making this anolagy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Was that a lengthy discussion? [img]/emoticons/emotion-15.gif[/img]

---

Not this side of 1.6 crop, when it comes to sensor sharpness and DOF and light and the circle of confusion and everybody not knowing what that means can get a bit lengthy[:)]


John.

Not to complicate things even more...


I am faced with a similar dilema. I have the 70-200 f/4 (no IS) and want more speed and length. The 70-300 gives length at the cost of speed. The 70-200 f/2.8 gives speed with no additional length. What to do???[:S]





Is the 70-200 f/2.8 not that good? I was considering it as a lower cost alternative to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Or a used/refurb 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

The 70-200/2.8 is great, if your shutter speeds are going to be fast enough that you don

Very interesting. The f/2.8 non IS is sharper than the f/2.8 is.


I would even go for the f/4is but my biggest problem is subject blur from motion. I took several shots recently in gymnasium at night, with flash, and many pictures were blurry. The subject was a ballroom dancing all Fifth graders are required to take. There was lots of movement and the shutter speed couldn't keep up @ ISO 400, the limit when using flash without high speed sync. My 24-70 did good with freezing the action but I needed the reach most of the time. Weather sealing is somewhat important to me also.





Brett

I

I'm not sue what to go with when the time is right (have the money). Deciding on lenses is tough. I got the 24-70 f/2.8 after much debate now I am feeling like an upgrade on the long end is needed.


I was seriously considering the 70-200 f/2.8 then found out it's not weather sealed. Then Neuro sent this over "The 70-200/2.8 is great, if your shutter speeds are going to be fast enough that you don't need IS. In very slightly descending order of IQ, the 70-200 series runs: f/2.8 IS II > f/4 IS > f/2.8 non-IS > f/4 non-IS > f/2.8 IS. " Is is worth trying to get a refurb. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II? If I went that route I would most likely get the 1.4 teleconverter. I could also get a used 70-200f/2.8IS but not if the non IS is better. I love my 70-200 f/4 outside but it's slow inside and I don't want to go backwards in pic quality.[8-)]


To answer your question... I didn't use HSS because some kids were very close and I didn't think it was an appropriate time to blast them with that. I did read in another discussion about shutter speed in AV mode (Also, in Av mode the default is to expose for ambient and add flash. In the flash control menu, there's a setting for shutter speed in Av mode, and that's Auto. You can also choose Auto between 1/60 - 1/250 (the 7D's max sync speed) or force 1/250) neuroanatomist" Maybe I will try forcing the shutter speed and not lower the flash output. Worth playing with.


Brett

First off, I love refurb stuff and wouldn

I should also add Mr. Hobby had been playing with a pocket wizard TT5 and getting almost 1/640 of a second. That

As Neuro said, in very slightly descending order of image quality. All the 70-200mm line are optically excelent and is not a major differentiating factor.


If you want to know exactly the differences between them look at Bryan

Greg,


your probably right about the camera but, don't tell my wife.[:P]


That's a fast sync with flash!!


I really like the Bokeh you get from the 2.8 and would regret going with the 70-300 f/4-5.6L and loose that and the speed for 100mm more length. Not to mention it is a


little slower than my f/4 at 104mm and get worse from there. I do like the IS and weather sealing though. Damn those lens designers.








John,


I'll check those out. Thanks.





Brett

I t looks to me like the 70-200 f/4IS is the sharpest of the bunch from the ISO charts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firephoto

I t looks to me like the 70-200 f/4IS is the sharpest of the bunch from the ISO charts.

---

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and the 70-200mm f/4L IS are very close, but the f/2.8L IS II is a whisker better. From a sharpness standpoint, it's barely evident from the ISO 12233 crops at native focal lengths, and alittle more evident when you add the 2x Extender III (the second 400mm option in the focal length pop-up), which magnifies the (admittedly minor) flaws in the optics. The photozone.de reviews of the two lenses on FF, which are quantitative in that they measure the MTF using Imatest, show that the 2.8 II has a slight edge with both lenses wide open, and a more meaningful edge with both at f/4. Also, there's more to IQ than sharpness -Bryan also states, "Relative to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens, the f/4 IS has more CA at the longer half of the focal length range and more vignetting at f/4." It also costs twice as much, of course, but sometimes you need that extra stop of light. Regardless, from a everyday shooting standpoint, there's probably no meaningful IQ difference between the two lenses - both are excellent, and the choice mainly comes down to aperture vs. size/weight/cost.

Good point. You hit the nail on the head here "the choice mainly comes down to aperture vs. size/weight/cost." The difference being $1170 makes me really examine my


needs. I would absolutely love the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II if I can afford it/don't mind carrying it.





I got a chance to play around with shutter speeds and flash Sync today and was surprised how fast I could shoot and still get a sharp picture with HSS. I was indoors and shooting at


1/1000 f/4 ISO 400 and could get a sharp nearly fully exposed image. Granted the subject was 12' away but nearly pitch black. I'll have to do some more to see what's possible.


Thanks for bringing my attention to the force 1/250 shutter speed in AV mode.





Brett

I have the 24-105mm with the 7d and yes I will most likely be shooting birds and would like to have the reach. I was leaning toward the 100-400 but since it is not weather sealed it is making my decision harder. I will be shooting in almost constant humidity and was afraid the non weather sealing will diminish the length of life on the $1500. lens.


I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naturac

They wrote, "if you don't need it's rugged L-series build stick with canon's current non L 70-300 which is slightly sharper at 300 and has slightly better close-up magnification 1:4:1 at 300".

---

The non-L is slightly sharper? It sure doesn't look that way to me...the non-L rather seems to fall apart at 300mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naturac

Also, a bit on the subject of the 7d and 1.6x magnification. Is that the same as saying the 24-105mm would be 38.4-168mm?

---

Not exactly. It's a crop factor, not a magnification factor. So, your subject doesn't get 1.6x larger - the same subject at the same distance will cover the same area of the sensor, regardless of sensor size. With a crop body, you just use a smaller portion of the image circle, so a 24mm lens on a crop body gives the angle of view of a 38mm lens on a FF body (which isn't even wide angle).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naturac

Yes, the new 70-300L canon would be a no-brainer because it is weather sealed. Although has anyone read pop-photo's April 2011, page 86 review on the new 70-300 4-5.6L? They wrote, "if you don't need it's rugged L-series build stick with canon's current non L 70-300 which is slightly sharper at 300 and has slightly better close-up magnification 1:4:1 at 300".

---

I owned the 70-300mm IS Non L for a while , it was a nice lens but it wouldn't compete with the 100-400L in IQ. Looking at the ISO charts its not anywhere close to the new 70-300mm L.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=738&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3


Maybe your talking about the 70-300mm DO, but its not close either


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=243&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=113&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3


Even the 100-400mm L is better at 300mm than the two non L lenses


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=243&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=113&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


Sounds like to me after 86 pages they were running out of things to say.