70-200f/4 vs. 100-400

[Fast Glass]

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

[Firephoto]

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

[Firephoto]

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

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[Firephoto]

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

[naturac]

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

[neuroanatomist]

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.

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).

[HDNitehawk]

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.