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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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).[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/Aptos-Sunset_2D00_0449-_5B00_800x600_5D00_.jpg[/img]
Wow! That's a really nice shot!
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.
Originally Posted by Fabricio
Actually, the 400mm f/5.6 L is about $150 cheaper (though you loose zoom and IS).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote