70-200 or 100-400 lens?

[Anthony]

I think the 100-400 is the cheapest way o get a 400mm lens.

Actually, the 400mm f/5.6 L is about $150 cheaper (though you loose zoom and IS).

[Bill M.]

I have the 100-400mm and I love it, it gives you so much versatility if you have pretty good light. I usually have the 24-105mm and 100-400mm together when I want a broad range of coverage. What everyone is saying about the 70-200mm f4 IS is also true though. Tack sharp lens with very effective IS and definately lighter than the 2.8 IS (Although weight generally doesn't bother me that much) I only use the 2.8 when I know I'm going to be shooting primarily indoors or in very poor light where I need the fastest zoom I can get.


The 70-200mm with a teleconverter is an option, but in my opinion, your taking a bit of IQ away and at that point, the 70-200 combo isn't going to be that much sharper than the 100-400. I've haven't had the opportunity to use the 300mm f4 but I think I value the versatility that the 100-400 gives me more than the extra sharpness of the 300mm for nature shots. Also, if you are using a crop camera body, as Bryan noted in his review of the 100-400mm, you would have to shell out a lot more to get a prime lens to compete with the 640mm 5.6 lens your getting with the 100-400mm.

[Don Burkett]

Just to chime in I have both the 70-200 f/4 and the 100-400 both are great lens but the 100-400 is on my camera more. I don't know what other lens you have but in my case I also own the 24-105 so the 70-200 is completely overlapped. I still carry and use the 70-200 because at 100 it's better than the 24-105 and it's faster than than the 100-400 and that's handy when you need it. But, with a crop camera I don't find myself in the 100-200 range very often. When I need a tele it's usually in the 200-400 range and thus the 100-400 is the telezoom I reach for.

[EdN]

I've got the 70-200 F4 IS and I do use it with the 1.4 X extender. Canon's brochure and reviews say that there is very little loss in image quality. I haven't done any tests myself other than to occasionally pixel peep but I really don't see much degradation using the extender. What I've read about the 2x extender is that it's not as good so I stayed away from that one.


The combination of 70-200 F4 IS and the 1.4X extender is a pretty compact, lightweight,and discrete package to take out for shoots.


Since then, I have also purchased the 300 F4 L IS and I use it principally for wildlife. In that application, the 1.4 X is attached to it most of the time and I find I really don't need to pack the 70-200.


So depending on what I'm doing, I've been able to assemble "mission packages" for whatever type of outing I'm doing. There's some places where packing the 300 F4 makes it stand out in a crowd while the 70-200 F4 keeps a low profile.


I didn't plan in the beginning to purchase these items but it's actually worked out pretty well. High quality all the way and also pretty flexible.

[Dallasphotog]

I own a lot of different lens and I really love my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. I use the 2.0x converter on rare occasions to increase my reach, but normally the 70-200 is enough. I have an XT, XTi and a 1D mkII and the 70-200 works beautifully on all three. I'm sure the 100-400 is nice optically, but the push-pull zoom is just not my cup of tea.