Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
I'm not sure what you mean about the "not entirely overwhelmingly positive comments and reviews." Here's what Bryan wrote at the end of his review:
"
The wide focal length range and long max focal length make the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens a highly versatile and a very popular lens.
This is one of the lenses I most-frequently recommend."
Does that last sentence sound very negative?
The two lenses are very different and are good for different purposes. You could use the 2x teleconverter with the 70-200 to get 140-400, but the "IQ" would probably disappoint you. The 2x is much worse than the 1.4x.
I have the 100-400, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and the 70-200 f/4 IS. (Yes, that's right--both; you'll see why below.) They all get used, for different situations.
I started with a 70-200 f/4, without IS, then went to the 70-200 f/4 IS. Compared to other lenses I had owned, that was simply amazing. (It still is.) It's fantastic for landscapes, flowers, etc. It's no wonder several reviewers have called it the "best zoom lens" of any make, period. It's also very easy to use--I can zoom with the fingers of my right hand, for example.
Next, I added the 100-400mm lens, as I needed more reach than the 70-200 f/4 IS (even with a 1.4x teleconverter--I also have the 2x, but that would not autofocus on my 30D.) It has become my primary nature/wildlife lens. (See Bryan's review for more.) You've seen others' shots, but here's a 100% crop high-quality JPEG at 400mm, f/6.3, 1/400, ISO 100. I'm not that expert, yet, but that should be sharp enough for most people.
I can make a direct comparison of the 100-400 IS and the 70-200 f/4 IS, in a sense. Below is a 50% crop (1600 x 1200, scaled by 1/2) of an osprey at 400mm. I did 50% to get the image the same rough size as what follows (400mm, f/6.3, 1/320, ISO 100, exposure compensation +1--probably should have been more, though Photoshop "shadows and highlights" can do wonders)
Next is the same bird, from roughly the same position, with the 70-200mm f/4L IS at 189mm (should have been at 200mm), f/6.3 (same aperture), 1/500, ISO 100, exposure compensation +2/3 (experimenting).
The 70-200mm shot does appear to be a bit sharper to me, though the scaling can make a difference. In any case, the difference isn't all that great.
Next, here's a 100% crop of that osprey's mate (I don't know which is the male vs female) on their nest. This was quite a distance--200 ft? I used the 100-400 lens plus 1.4x teleconverter. That gave 560mm, but it won't autofocus, so I had to manually focus. That's non-trivial with an f/8 viewfinder, even in the strong light that day. My eyes aren't as good as they once were--I've always been near-sighted and wear glasses, but I now have to use progressives--damned old age! [8o|] Still, this isn't all that bad. (Remember that this is 100%, so the bird's image is a very, very small part of the frame. I would love to have had a 500mm f/4L IS + 1.4x = 700mm f/5.6 IS, but don't want to spend $6K.)
I expect that you can see why the 100-400 has become my primary nature/wildlife long lens. When out shooting nature, I carry the 100-400, a 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, and the 1.4x teleconverter. Depending upon the situation and how much I want to carry, I may also have a 100mm f/2.8 Macro and/or Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6. You can see why the 10-20mm comes in handy below:
That was taken literally inches from the rotting apple @ 10mm (f/11, 1/100, ISO 400, exposure compensation +1/3) For me, a primary use of a super-wide angle is to get really, really close, without magnifying the image, like the Macro lens will do.
As I said, I also have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. I use that for equestrian events, which are often in indoor arenas. The lighting can be mediocre to terrible--white balance can be a real challenge, as well. Anything less than f/2.8 just can't give me the shutter speed I need to stop the horse's legs. (They move forward at about twice the horse's forward speed.) I need a minimum of 1/250 for trotting and slow cantering, 1/400 or better for galloping horses. I'd like to keep the ISO to 800 to avoid terrible noise, but, sometimes, I have to go all the way to 3200
Here's an example at the trot, taken with the 70-200 f/2.8 @ 95mm, f/2.8, 1/250, ISO 800, fluorescent white balance. It's a 50% crop (1600 x 1200 scaled by 1/2). I should have used a longer focal length, but I was shooting both video (tripod-mounted Optura 50) and stills at the same time, so couldn't concentrate enough to frame at a longer focal length. The point here is the shutter speed.
That was at a local "high-class" facility, with relatively good lighting, though the white balance can be problematic, as the arena has south-facing skylights that reflect off the inside of the roof, plus high-intensity fluorescent lights. That mixture of reflected daylight and fluorescent can be a real PITA. I use manual exposure, as the white background can easily fool the camera. (For those familiar with riding, yes, the horse is on his forehand and is over-flexed, but that is apparently the way the Arabian judges want the hunter horses. The horse is an Arab-Stock-type Pinto cross. When ridden well in dressage, he has spectacular gaits. The rider--one of my students--won an Arabian National Championship in second-level dressage with another horse, so she knows what she's doing.)
To complement the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I would like to have a 24-70mm
f/2.8L, but, instead, I have a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The 24-70mm is
equivalent to 38-112mm on a full-frame camera, so it's not really very
wide, whereas the 17-55mm is like 27-88mm. Still, it would be nice to
span the gap between 55mm and 70mm (equivalent to 88mm-112mm).
It gets worse, though--a lot worse. Our County Fairgrounds arena is about as bright as Dracula's tomb and the lighting isn't consistent, so a white balance that works for a subject at one spot may not render then entire scene nicely. I usually end up using reasonably-fast primes (35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2) for the fast-moving events like barrel racing and pole bending. Even so, I have to use ISO 1600 or 3200 to get a shutter speed of 1/400-1/800.
So, you'll have to decide what you'll want to do and then get the better lens for that purpose.
Reply With Quote