I'm going to make the L Series plunge. Which of these two do you think would be best to start?

[LoneSierra]

So first, the hardware decision. Either of these two lenses.


1. 100-400mm IS


2. 70-200mm 2.8 IS with a 1.4 extender


So, who am I? This is my first real year into photography as more than just a hobby. I shoot everything. Sports, nature, portraits, weddings....whatever someone wants me to shoot, I'll be happy to do it.


I'm going to make up a SMALL amount of the focal range with the 1.4 extender. I don't want to do the 2x, because it degrades a little too much, and I will end up with both of these lenses eventually anyway, so I can use the 1.4 on the 100-400 and turn it into almost a 600.


Any suggestions from anyone?

[Keith B]

Curtain number 2 Monty! Curtain number 2!


The 70-200 will just so much more useful in lower light situations.


I have both lenses and use the 70-200 so much more but I love having the 100-400 for good light outdoor sports and air shows.

[jasbsar]

70-200mm 2.8 IS with a 1.4 extender. It is the better one for sports (f2.8 nice and fast), portraits (2.8 gives really good bokeh), weddings (low light).


The 100-400mm IS is more for nature and aircraft shows are another favorite for it.


I had that same problem when upgrading the 70-200mm f4 L until I spoke with someone who sold the 100-400mm. They said it can pick up dust due to the push pull zoom acting like a bellow. So I went for the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS for all the things I listed as its bonus points as well as the dust issue.

[LoneSierra]

Hmm....sounds like you guys are leaning the way I was leaning. That 2.8 and ultra fast focus are definitely drawing me in.....I think that's the way I'll go.



Thanks for the input!

[Keith B]

I wouldn't allow the push/pull dust issue deter you from buying the 100-400 in the future though. I haven't had an issue with it. I do see small dust in it but it seem to find it's way to the sensor and doesn't show up in images.

[LoneSierra]

I wouldn't allow the push/pull dust issue deter you from buying the 100-400 in the future though. I haven't had an issue with it. I do see small dust in it but it seem to find it's way to the sensor and doesn't show up in images.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Oh DEFINITELY not! I've used that lens at the shop and I absolutely love it. I enjoy the push pull feel of that lens! I just have to get the lens that will do the most for me overall right now, and I think that the 70-200 with the 1.4EX will do that. As soon as I have the money, I'll be getting the 100-400. I can't wait to have almost a 600mm lens! haha


How is the IS on the 100-400? Would you say 2 or 3 stops?

[Keith B]

I meant to say it doesn't find it's way to the sensor.


I'd say 3 on the 100-200 end and probably 2 on the longer end. I'm not very steady with it though. I actually don't shoot too much with it with the IS enables.

[Daniel Browning]

shoot everything. Sports, nature, portraits, weddings

If you have a 1.6X body, I suggest the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The focal length is generally more useful for weddings, portraits, and even some sports. But even with the 1.4X TC and 1.6X body, it's still too short for most wildlife photography. For that, the 100-400 is a better choice.


Essentially I think it comes down to choosing between wildlife (100-400) vs. everything else (70-200).

[piiooo]

I'd go with 70-200 2.8 IS + 1.4


There have been rumors about a 100-400 Mk2, which is another reason to wait.

[Keith B]

If a 100-400 mkII ever actually drops, I'm pretty scared to see the price tag. The new 24 1.4 jumped $600.