EF 70-200 f/4 L IS and EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS

[thekingb]

Looking for some TDP community wisdom!


I have a 7D and the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS, which is my all-time favorite lens (at least among the 6 or 7 that I have ever owned). I love shooting wildlife, nature shots (the tele end rather than UWA) and people. The 70-200 is the perfect combo of size, weight, sharpness and cost for much of my needs. But for wildlife and some nature shots, it's just not long enough.


500mm is out of my price range. The 400 f/5.6 prime seems like a good value, but I can't justify buying a super-tele without IS. The 300 f/4 IS seems too short and loses some sharpness with a 1.4x teleconverter, plus it's inherently less flexible than a zoom. Which brings me to the EF 100-400, which would fill the 300-400mm range.


But here's my concern: if I have the 100-400, am I ever going to use the 70-200 other than for planned portraits (for which I also have the EF 85 f/1.8)? I fully realize that from 100-200mm, the 70-200 is significantly sharper than the 100-400. But I wonder if the one-stop telezoom convenience of the 100-400 would lead me to choose it over a sharper lens out of fear that I will need the 300-400mm range.


I am not against changing lenses. But carrying around both the 70-200 and the 100-400 for an outing seems unlikely.


Anyone have a 70-200 and the 100-400? Reactions?


Thanks in advance!


Brian

[ddt0725]

Hi Brian -


I owed the 300mm f/4 and sold it to get the 100-400mm, then I bought the 70-200mm f/4 IS because of all the wonderful reviews for that lens. I will admit that although all the reviews proved to be true and it is an awesome lens, it has only seen the light of day on a very few occasions! I also have not used my 1.4x II extender since I sold my 300mm. I ALWAYS use my 100-400mm like you said, just in case that extra reach is needed! I have never carried both on a hike just in case I wanted more sharpness and less reach! For portraits, I always use one of my prime lenses.


Since I have only used the 70-200mm maybe 5 times, I

[neuroanatomist]

Hi Brian,


I have both the 100-400mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. With my 7D, I found the 70-200mm to be an awkward focal range - good for outdoor events (backyard parties, etc.), but I didn

[thekingb]

John & Denise - you are both confirming my suspicions, which is making me sad! I have always told people to buy and keep the lenses they need, not the ones they love but don

[jake66]

I

[neuroanatomist]

But it is a bit short, especially for birds. I'm mostly leaning towards the 400mm 5.6 and maybe a monopod just so I don't have to give up the 70-200

The downside there is that the 400mm f/5.6L does not have IS. The 400/5.6 is a great lens for birds in flight - light and quick focusing when you need to use a fast shutter speed anyway. But for birds on branches, IS really helps, and is more convenient than a monopod. To get 400mm with IS under $2K, your options in the Canon line are the 100-400mm or the 300mm f/4L IS with the 1.4x TC, and the zoom will give you better optical quality than the 300/4 + extender.

[MikeG2012]

I have both, and for my purposes the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is on my 7D more than the 100-400. I love both lenses, they each have strengths and weaknesses. I do a lot of portrait and event photography, so the 70-200 is my primary lens. However, as soon as I step outside to do an air show, sporting event, or shoot wildlife, the 100-400 is my go to lens without question. I don

[thekingb]

What about the new 70-300 L instead? Has anyone used it yet? It would obviously replace the 70-200. And I like that the IS is latest generation. I would sacrifice 100mm on the long end, but it is smaller and lighter and newer. Thoughts? Thanks.