November 27, 2014, 12:48:43 PM

Author Topic: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....  (Read 2602 times)

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3017
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2014, 12:59:29 PM »
I've had this debate a bit myself as I own the 70-200 but do a lot of wildlife work.  The old 100-400 never made me happy, but I was very close to pre-ordering the 100-400.  Then the 11-24 f/4 leaked and that interests me more, but I'll give you my thoughts:

70-200 f/2.8 IS II or f/4 IS are both brilliant lenses, with the f/4 being just as good, but costs much less and is much smaller & lighter.  Both take the 1.4x extenders very well and are excellent for wildlife shooting.  The 2.8 is also a great low light & event/sports lens, plus excellent portrait and general purpose lens.  The f/4 can be used for these as well, but has less shallow DOF and needs 1 more stop.  With the 2x, the f/4 AF struggles a bit more in lower light, but works.  The f/2.8 takes the 2x very well, but becomes somewhat long and bulky, and isn't very pleasant ergonomically, but is still viable.

The new 100-400 looks to be extremely sharp & versatile, offering all of the above without the need to reach for extenders, with the tradeoff being less light, less shallow DOF, and bigger size/weight.  Unless you need low light / action stopping ability (less critical with the newer DSLR bodies high ISO capabilities) or shallow DOF for portraits, I'd go for this lens as it's more versatile and 1 purchase vs. 2 or 3 (with the extenders).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2014, 12:59:29 PM »

JonAustin

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Telecom / IT consultant and occasional pro photog
    • View Profile
    • Austin & Austin Professional Services
Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2014, 01:43:33 PM »
The new 100-400 looks to be extremely sharp & versatile, offering all of the above without the need to reach for extenders, with the tradeoff being less light, less shallow DOF, and bigger size/weight.
Agree with your entire post; would just like to point out that the 100-400 II -- when compared to the 70-20 II -- is only 5% heavier (80g / .18lb), 5% larger diameter (5mm / 0.2") and actually a little shorter (6mm / .24") when collapsed. Add the 2x TC to the 70-200 II, and the size & weight advantages swing the other way, although the TC can be detached for packing.
Photographic equipment

tayassu

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr
Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2014, 02:01:31 PM »
I would go for the 100-400 as I would rather use a bare lens than always slap on a TC...
You have a fast tele prime with the Macro, that area is covered and for wildlife, the 100-400 is surely the better choice.
Camera: Canon 7D
Lenses: Tokina 4/12-24mm II, Tamron 2.8/24-70mm VC, Canon 4-5.6/70-300 L, Tamron 2.8/90mm VC

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • *********
  • Posts: 9182
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2014, 02:03:05 PM »
My existing 100-400 is actually shorter than my 70-200mm but is a little larger in diameter.  There is no practical difference in size.
 
However, if I only had one to choose from, the 70-200 f/2.8 MK II would be a easy first choice.  I use the 100-400L a lot less, and could use my TC's if I wanted.  Of course, I can use a TC on the 100-400L as well.
 
Get the 70-200, and, if you find yourself needing longer focal lengths, then consider a long telephoto.  400mm is not all that long on FF, even 600mm seems short for wildlife.  In fact, my 600mm + 1.4 & 2X TC's stacked was not long enough for eagles that I could not get close to.

nostrovia

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2014, 03:48:46 PM »
I apologize now, as this question has probably been asked many times. I am looking at getting a new zoom lens, I currently have the 5dMKIII, 24-105 kit lense and the 100mm macro

I am thinking of either the iconic 70-200 f2.8 (with either 1.4X or 2x convertor), or the new 100-400

Now, this is just a hobby for me and I take an assortment of pictures, landscapes, few portraits etc, but I would like someting with a bit more reach to start taking wildlife i.e. birds etc, the occasional BIF

I like the thought of the f2.8 on the 70-200…and also the range 70-400 (if you include the convertor) this gives me flexibility as I will not always be taking wildlife pic’s

But, the new  100-400mm has thrown something new into the mix and the thought of all that reach is tempting, but with f4.5 – f5.6 this would be make it mostly an outdoor lens

i know there is the 300, f2.8 prime, but this is only a hobby and i cannot justify the big $$$

So, If you had the option what lens would you go with, ?

I think I am in a relatively similar place, particularly with respect to the hobbyist part.  I shoot with a crop (70D) and I have the 16-35 F4L, 40mm pancake, 50 F1.4 (old Canon version), 100L, and the 55-250 STM zoom.  I shoot landscape, family portraits, family candids, macro, and more and more wildlife.  I have coveted the 70-200 F2.8 for quite some time, and was planning to pick one up for the holidays this year.  Now that the 100-400II has become a reality, I will be pre-ordering that instead (and praying that it get here before Christmas). 

As I see it, and for what I shoot as an amateur, speed is a luxury that can usually be compensated with a flash.  I've taken plenty of indoor shots with my 16-35 F4 with flash and have been quite happy with them, as I am sure you have done with your 24-105.  They may not be "professional quality" with perfect bokeh, but I'm not selling pics of my family and friends anytime soon. 

On the other hand, reach is a necessity when you need it.  I like the IQ of the 55-250 STM, but often found that I wanted much more reach for wildlife, and that the AF really struggled on fast-moving objects like birds in flight.  With the 100-400, I get a lot more reach without the AF hit of adding a teleconverter.  If I need even more reach, I can still add TC's and use the DPAF, at least for stationary wildlife shots in good light.  You would have the added benefit of the traditional AF with a 1.4x TC on your setup.

Just my 2 cents.  Good luck with your decision - at the end of the day, your decision on which awesome lens to purchase is a great problem to have!

bluenoser1993

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2014, 12:32:15 AM »
One further thing to consider is the tracking of AF for the wildlife use.  The 70-200 with the 2x will leave you with a single point which is fine for stationary targets or slow movers.  The 100-400 will leave you the full spread of focus points so your AF can still track - sorry I can't remember which body you said you had, this will make more difference depending on body.  It doesn't just come down to IQ difference, and I agree with what others have said, the 70-200 with the 2X attached isn't that great to hold.

dgatwood

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 811
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2014, 01:01:23 AM »
Personally, I'm very fine with my 70-300L, and if I want "fast" I'd rather add fast(er) primes to that (I've already got the 100L macro). Even for indoor flash-supported work the 70-300L is ok, it's not like one stop @70mm is such a big deal when you're doing small prints.

I tend to agree.  I loved my 70–300L on crop, but after moving to full-frame, I find myself leaving the 1.4x extender on it almost nonstop, so I’m probably going to switch to the new 100—400L II at some point.  I think night sports is pretty much the only plausible reason to go with the 70–200L f/2.8.  For most normal situations where you need reach, f/4 and even f/5.6 is plenty fast enough, and if you don’t need reach, you’ll probably be using your 24–105L, so the 70–100 range won’t be a big loss.

I have the 24–105L and the 70–300L, and 84% of my shots were shot at focal lengths longer than 105mm.  I don’t think I’d miss the overlap that much.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2014, 01:01:23 AM »