If you're not going to use this lens a lot, then plan a vacation and rent it for a week or two.
If you're not going to use this lens a lot, then plan a vacation and rent it for a week or two.
None of the above... I'm waiting to see if a new model of the 100-400 comes out.
I have the original 75-300 IS USM and love having that range, but I'm having a hard time deciding between getting a 70-200 L 2.8 IS USM and the 100-400 L IS USM.
I could get the 70-200 and buy a good doubler, or I could buy the 100-400. I like the non-extending lens on the 70-200 but I know it won't take as good of pictures by going 200x2. I'm pretty sure the 70-200 will take better pictures, but I already have the 24-105 L IS USM and could potentially just use the doubler on it and buy the 100-400.
I have Can 10-22, Tam 17-50 2.8, Sig 30 1.4, Can 24-105 L 4.0 IS (and the mediocre Can 75-300). So, which one? I know, best solution... get both. I will eventually. I just have to figure out which first. Which means I'm leaning towards the 70-200 while I wait for an updated 100-400 to come out. I'm sure you guys will be just as decisive as me. [*-)]
I guarantee you that if Canon ever does release an updated 100-400, it will NOT be anywhere near f/2.8 nor will it even be a constant f-number. That is why the 70-200/2.8L IS is such a coveted lens--it is about as long as one can make a telephoto zoom whilst having a constant wide aperture. A 100-400 zoom will necessarily be something like f/4-5.6 unless you are willing to make the front element huge (or resort to DO). But that defeats the whole purpose of such a zoom and it's not going to be in the $1500 range anymore.
The 70-200/2.8L IS and the 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS are entirely, entirely different lenses for different photographic purposes, and not primarily because of the difference in focal length range. Since you are already happy with the design constraints (if not image quality) of 70-300/4-5.6 IS, you should simply go to 100-400 now because I don't see Canon updating this design any time soon. It will remain push-pull (an IF design would make the barrel prohibitively large and heavy for handholding), and it won't go much wider than it currently is, without becoming astronomically expensive. So I wonder what kind of update is desired...maybe more fluorite/UD elements for better CA control? Or...? Playing the waiting game means you could go another 5-6 years before Canon revisits this lens.
One last thing I would like to point out...based on your existing stated lineup you are missing out on shooting very fast apertures at the longer end, so I take it you're not doing a lot of portraiture or available light photography. That is the biggest reason to get the 70-200/2.8L IS, but you could be served quite well with any wide prime, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 macro, 135/2L, or 200/2.8L II, each of which costs significantly less than the zoom and is sharper too.
why not drool over the 600 f/4 instead?
I mean, if you're gonna go big, go BIG!
Originally Posted by wickerprints
I guess you could make a 100-400 zoom, and make it a constant 5.6. However, if you make a 400mm telephoto faster than 5.6, it's not going to be with a 77mm front filter size. At 400mm, f/4, you'd need to have a front element larger than 100mm, even with DO. Every zoom I've seen has been heavier and larger than an equivalent prime. What would be cool would be if it could do f/2.8 at 200mm, f/1.4 at 100mm, etc. The aperture size would theoretically allow this, but there may be factors in design which prohibit this... If you wanted to guarantee constant aperture, go Av, and set the aperture to the slowest available...
I like the 70-200/2.8L IS because I can change focal lengths quickly, which is handy when you're taking pictures of things that move, or at least don't wait for you to cross the room []
I may just do that. Since I have the 10-105 range covered and like being able to get close in shots of things I can't get to (a good example is Gargoyles on a building or other such architectural details).
One last thing I would like to point out...based on your existing stated lineup you are missing out on shooting very fast apertures at the longer end, so I take it you're not doing a lot of portraiture or available light photography. That is the biggest reason to get the 70-200/2.8L IS, but you could be served quite well with any wide prime, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 macro, 135/2L, or 200/2.8L II, each of which costs significantly less than the zoom and is sharper too.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
This is true too. Probably why I am sure I'll eventually end up with both. They are different in usage and I want to be able to have all those usages... I just can't decide which to go with FIRST.
Oh, side comment. I often would like the fixed longer range lens, especially with the low f/stops... however I find much of my shooting where I want to be able to get a close shot of something 'far' away is done in areas where I don't have a good ability to move around a LOT. So I tend to stick to a zoom for longer range lenses.
While the 100-400 is about 4 years older than the 70-200/2.8L IS, all
bets are off when it comes to guessing which would see any design
changes...so my recommendation is to buy what you know is going to
maximize your utility, not which one you believe is going to stay
"newer." What's a missed opportunity worth?
Regarding the preference for telezooms over telephoto primes, I can appreciate your point, but the problem of course is that you're not left with a lot of options. The 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS is pretty much it, and it is the only 400mm zoom in the Canon lineup. If anything, I'm surprised you don't already own it given your stated shooting preferences--it's impressive even in its current incarnation.
My personal belief is that the importance of focal length is overemphasized in popular photography relative to aperture. By this I do not mean that I think one can get away with using a 24mm lens at an outdoor sporting event, or a 800mm lens for panoramic vistas. Having a variety of focal lengths at one's disposal is essential. What I mean is that the trend of technological improvement in zooms has led to an over-reliance on adjusting focal length to establish composition, to the detriment of sharpness and perspective considerations. Now, I'm not one of those 'prime shooters' (I love my zooms), but I've noticed in my own shooting style that I often subconsciously end up using the extremes of the zoom range and actually walk about to frame properly. And of course that makes absolutely no sense because I could have done better if I had chosen a prime to begin with! So I recognize that issue in my own experience.
Aperture-wise, I tend to shoot very wide, even with ample light, because I like to use shallow DOF to establish areas of interest. There simply isn't any other way to make that kind of image. As a result, I'm quite comfortable with the idea of sacrificing some zoom flexibility if it means I can shoot wider apertures. Of course, YMMV. It all depends on what you like to shoot, and how you go about the process.
I wonder what a 200-400/2.8-5.6L IS would look like. Certainly it could be sharper (though not necessarily smaller) than the 100-400.
<p style="CLEAR: both"]Cory, the Extender EF 2x won't work on the EF 24-105mm f/4L
<p style="CLEAR: both"]"Inner focusing system with focusing cam Not compatible with Tele Extenders"
<p style="CLEAR: both"]Click here to see the <span style="font-size: x-small;"][url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/canon2xExtender.html]Extender EF 2x II Compatibility Chart[/url]
<p style="CLEAR: both"]<span style="font-size: x-small;"]I would buy whichever lens you think you'll get more use out of. I own both the EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. I bought the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS first and if I had it to do all over again I would do it in the same order. Both lenses are amazing but they do quite different things.
Now that sounds neat!!! There has been SO much talk about a EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II but no one has ever brought up a 200-400mm f/2.8-5.6L IS version (that I remeber []). That would be awesome! We already know that a 200-400mm f/4 version would both weigh and cost a ton (see Nikkor 200-400mm f/4) but how would the 200-400mm f/2.8-5.6 fair? Since I don't know anything about lens design I couldn't begin to speculate but odds are it would both weigh and cost a ton [:P]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote