70-200f/4 vs. 100-400

[naturac]

hello all:


I am driving myself crazier trying to decide which lens to buy. My decisions were between the 70-200f/4 and the 100-400. Canon has now thrown the new70-300L into the mix. I had been told the 100-400 is basically used for objects that don't move, but I have seen some great bird shots, including the hummingbird in flight on the bird photo post on this site. I also have read the review for each lens.


I tried to view the photos from the other posts but for some reason most of the 100-400 photos were not able to be viewed.


I have a 7d that I know will magnify the lens 1.6x. I like the fact the 70-200 is lighter and with the f/4, it will help some withlower light , but the 400 has more reach.


I don't want to sacrifice a crisp photo





Any help will be great


naturac

[Fast Glass]

I had been told the 100-400 is basically used for objects that don't move, but I have seen some great bird shots, including the hummingbird in flight on the bird photo post on this site.

Who told you that? The 100-400mm was practically made for things that move, the zoom range allows you to frame your subject as it moves in and out. It dosen't have the fastest apeture but with todays cameras in decent light it's sufficient. Unless you are trying to shoot low light action then it can be a problem.


From the intonation of your post it sounds like you are trying to shoot birds and need reach. The 100-400mm is far superior for that.The 400mmf/5.6 would beeven better but it's quite limiting for other uses.If you are using it for more of a general purposezoomthen a 70-200mm might make more sense, but a 100-400mm would be an excelent choice also. If you aregoing to mix someportriats a 70-200mm f/2.8non-IS or ISwould be you best choice. It would help a lot in low light also.


John.

[andnowimbroke]

Just a refresher, I don

[Steve U]

My two cents worth, since you are considering the 70-200 and the 100-400 and they are really different but can be used for similar purposes, would be to go for the 70-300mmL. This has the latest 4 stop IS, weather sealing, fantsatic image quality and would work great on the 7D. If you already had a 70-200 or a 100-400, then the 70-300mm is not worth considering.


But since you don

[nvitalephotography]

This question depends heavily on what you plan on primarily shooting. If its wildlife then obviously the 100-400 is the clear choice because you will want the most reach possible. If its more general purpose and low light then one of the 70-200mm lenses is what you should get.


Although, as Steve said, the 70-300 is also an excellent choice if you plan on doing a mix of things.


I have the 100-400 and love it, but of course I primarily photograph birds, so I needed the 400mm. The only limitation to it is low light use, but it does fine in most situations even with fast moving birds.


Nick

[DavidEccleston]

As for the throw-away/enlarge debate of crop sensors. Yes. Both. Take your 25MP fullframe image. Throw away half of it, and you have a 12.5MP image. But your 7D is 18MP, so obviously it's also enlarged too.


I'm similarly attempting to figure out my telephoto lens choices, and it's certainly not easy. I want long, high quality, fast, cheapish, light, and versatile... and that just doesn't exist. I'll confuse you further with my ramblings of lens choices, in case it helps you figure out what you're looking for.


100-400mm - older IS. Not as sharp as the latest lenses. Goes to 400mm, or further with manual focus + extender.
70-300mm - newer IS. Sharp. Only goes to 300mm. Potentially 420mm w/ a 3rd party extender and manual focus.
70-200mm f/4 - Good IS. Sharp. Only 200mm, but at F4. Can do 280mm w/ extender
70-200mm f/2.8 - No IS at the price range I'd be looking at. Decent sharpness. Only 200, but at F2.8. Can do 280@f/4 and 400@f/5.6


The 400 isn't fast, or the highest quality, though it's quite good
The 300 is high quality, but isn't fast, or quite as long, though it is light.
The 200f4 is sort of fast, and high quality, but not long or versatile (swapping extenders on and off isn't ideal). The only advantage this combo has over the 70-300 is the faster aperture, and I think the extender disadvantage overpowers that.
The 200f2.8 is fast, but not the top end image quality. Not long or versatile. Does the 2.8 advantage overcome the convenience of the reach you get with 70-300 or 100-400?


I'm not certain I need the 'fast' at the same time as 'long', so I was considering the 70-300, or 100-400 along with, say, a 200mm F/2.8. This would eliminate the extender use, and allow for fast and long. But, potentially, I could use an extender on the 200 and get 280 F/4, which would be a faster 300 than the 70-300 would give... which brings me to 200mm f/2.8, 1.4x Extender, 100-400mm. We've now we've left the area of cheap... though non of these would necessarily have to be purchased at the same time, softening the blow.


Sadly, the solution seems to be lottery tickets.

[naturac]

I have the 24-105mm with the 7d and yes I will most likely be shooting birds and would like to have the reach. I was leaning toward the 100-400 but since it is not weather sealed it is making my decision harder. I will be shooting in almost constant humidity and was afraid the non weather sealing will diminish the length of life on the $1500. lens.


I

[neuroanatomist]

They wrote, "if you don't need it's rugged L-series build stick with canon's current non L 70-300 which is slightly sharper at 300 and has slightly better close-up magnification 1:4:1 at 300".

The non-L is slightly sharper? It sure doesn't look that way to me...the non-L rather seems to fall apart at 300mm.

Also, a bit on the subject of the 7d and 1.6x magnification. Is that the same as saying the 24-105mm would be 38.4-168mm?

Not exactly. It's a crop factor, not a magnification factor. So, your subject doesn't get 1.6x larger - the same subject at the same distance will cover the same area of the sensor, regardless of sensor size. With a crop body, you just use a smaller portion of the image circle, so a 24mm lens on a crop body gives the angle of view of a 38mm lens on a FF body (which isn't even wide angle).

[HDNitehawk]

Yes, the new 70-300L canon would be a no-brainer because it is weather sealed. Although has anyone read pop-photo's April 2011, page 86 review on the new 70-300 4-5.6L? They wrote, "if you don't need it's rugged L-series build stick with canon's current non L 70-300 which is slightly sharper at 300 and has slightly better close-up magnification 1:4:1 at 300".

I owned the 70-300mm IS Non L for a while , it was a nice lens but it wouldn't compete with the 100-400L in IQ. Looking at the ISO charts its not anywhere close to the new 70-300mm L.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=738&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3


Maybe your talking about the 70-300mm DO, but its not close either


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=243&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=113&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3


Even the 100-400mm L is better at 300mm than the two non L lenses


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=243&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=113&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


Sounds like to me after 86 pages they were running out of things to say.

[andnowimbroke]

Let me expound on my ignorance. Take an 8x10 picture and pretend it was taken with a full frame camera. Now rip a little over half of it off and throw it away. Ex-friends pic work real good for this. What you have left is what the crop sensor would have gotten standing in the same place with the same lens.