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

[ShutterbugJohan]

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!

[Daniel Browning]

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.

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

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[crosbyharbison]

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

[Keith B]

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.

[NFLD Stephen]

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

[ShutterbugJohan]

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

[Chuck Lee]

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.

[ShutterbugJohan]

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!

[Chuck Lee]

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.