April 17, 2014, 06:38:09 AM

Author Topic: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife  (Read 12695 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12749
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2013, 04:41:30 PM »
Maybe it has already been mentioned, but why not the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM?

Excellent IQ & IS comparable to the 70-200, better than the 100-400 - not quite as much range.  But significantly shorter and lighter than both of the other options you listed.  Could be a more practical lens out in the field.

If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.

Mentioned by me...and that's why I also have the 70-300L.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2013, 04:41:30 PM »

WPJ

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #31 on: November 11, 2013, 08:25:50 PM »
Maybe it has already been mentioned, but why not the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM?

Excellent IQ & IS comparable to the 70-200, better than the 100-400 - not quite as much range.  But significantly shorter and lighter than both of the other options you listed.  Could be a more practical lens out in the field.

If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.

The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).
controversial yes, but I'm in the love it camp, push pull is just so intuitive and natural to me.

dufflover

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
  • OH YEAH!
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2013, 03:51:13 AM »
Yeah love it or hate it thing. I love it. Overall don't care; I can use both pretty much fine.

Personally I didn't think there was enough difference between 200 and 300 for the 70-300 L and didn't see the point when it was also f/5.6; rather have 400mm then. Luckily (?) my 100-400 is reasonably good for me to not wish I had extra sharpness like I'm sure the 300 would have.
Hurry up Canon and do something with your sensors! :P

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1251
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2013, 09:34:21 AM »
Maybe it has already been mentioned, but why not the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM?

Excellent IQ & IS comparable to the 70-200, better than the 100-400 - not quite as much range.  But significantly shorter and lighter than both of the other options you listed.  Could be a more practical lens out in the field.

If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.

The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).
controversial yes, but I'm in the love it camp, push pull is just so intuitive and natural to me.

Quote
The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).

Oh, and twice the reach...  ;)
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 09:37:03 AM by Krob78 »
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400mm L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II, EF 24-105mm L, EF 17-40mm L, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM,  Canon 580EX II, Canon 430EX II, Promaster TC 1.7x

clostridium

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2013, 06:10:44 PM »

...

If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.

The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).

Others have pointed this out as well but the lens differentiates itself by having twice the reach as the 70-200 and 33% more reach than the 70-300.  And the 70-300 can't mount Canon TC's (not sure what quality is with alternatives - might not be bad) while the 100-400 can and still AF on a 5d3 and still provide decent quality. 

And the push-pull isn't really controversial - you either like it or you don't.  If you like it you are happy and don't care what the rest of the world thinks about it.  If you don't like it you don't get the lens.  I personally like it.

It all comes back to what you are doing with it.  If you need the 400mm reach for your application, the 70-300L will leave you dissatisfied even thought it is a great lens.  If you only occasionally need the reach perhaps you can get by with 70-200/2.8 plus some TC's but that involves compromises you have to be OK with (I agree that ergonomics of 2x on 70-200/2.8 are not great, uncomfortable to carry).

The 100-400 is a compromise lens.  You can find other lenses that will beat it at each and every focal length but there aren't many options that provide the range and flexibility in one lens.  That's why it continues to sell well.  Lenses are just tools and just collecting all the best ones is not the recipe for happiness or success in your photography.  You have to get the ones that meet your needs.

pharp

  • Guest
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2013, 08:23:47 PM »
I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm.  My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo.

I wonder if a retractable prime would be a hit? A 400mm lens that folds down to 7" - I can see some possibilities if also lighter and faster than the 100-400 @ 400.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2013, 08:29:07 PM by pharp »

dufflover

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
  • OH YEAH!
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2013, 09:05:59 PM »
That last one won't be possible, if you mean keeping with a 70-200 style size. (is that 7"?)
As you know a 400/4 would and has that large front element. At that size collapsible is somewhat redundant (and not cheap as it is lol)
Hurry up Canon and do something with your sensors! :P

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2013, 09:05:59 PM »

pharp

  • Guest
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2013, 10:07:17 PM »
That last one won't be possible, if you mean keeping with a 70-200 style size. (is that 7"?)
As you know a 400/4 would and has that large front element. At that size collapsible is somewhat redundant (and not cheap as it is lol)

Of course its possible - the 100-400 is quite compact folded. The question is; would a similar style that ISN'T a zoom, but just a 400 prime that is maybe a little faster (or even just 5.6) and lighter (@400) than the zoom version have any traction? (It wouldn't be redundant and could be made cheaper LOL!) I think compact carry size of the 75-300L and 100-400L appeals to many - why not try it on the primes? The 400 f/5.6 is a nice lens - would anyone prefer the same lens that is foldable?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2013, 10:13:03 PM by pharp »

dufflover

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
  • OH YEAH!
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2013, 11:11:06 PM »
Yep that's all I meant; the "faster" bit. It won't be able to go faster than f/5.6 without that big front element.
I'm all for the retractable prime too though! Have always pondered if such a lens would ever exist but kinda gave up on that because unfortunately I reckon it won't have much traction. Like "what's wrong with the 100-400 now?". I can't really disagree with that either if they make a MkII which is up-there in sharpness like the 70-200 II increase but maintaining a similar collapsible form factor.
Hurry up Canon and do something with your sensors! :P

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12749
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2013, 09:39:25 AM »
I wonder if a retractable prime would be a hit? A 400mm lens that folds down to 7" - I can see some possibilities if also lighter and faster than the 100-400 @ 400.

My guess is that it would be a non-starter.  But Canon contunies to patent now DO elements and lens designs, and one of the key advantages of that technology is that is results in physically shorter lenses for a given focal length (e.g. the 400/4 DO is shorter than the 300/2.8 and 400/5.6 lenses). 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Ruined

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2013, 02:09:11 PM »

...

If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.

The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).

Others have pointed this out as well but the lens differentiates itself by having twice the reach as the 70-200 and 33% more reach than the 70-300.  And the 70-300 can't mount Canon TC's (not sure what quality is with alternatives - might not be bad) while the 100-400 can and still AF on a 5d3 and still provide decent quality.

That is true, but the 100-400 also approaches the 70-200+2xTC in weight and size.  It is also less sharp than both the 70-200L and 70-300L, while being larger and heavier than the 70-300L.

Quote
And the push-pull isn't really controversial - you either like it or you don't.  If you like it you are happy and don't care what the rest of the world thinks about it.  If you don't like it you don't get the lens.  I personally like it.

You kind of just defined controversial :)

Quote
It all comes back to what you are doing with it.  If you need the 400mm reach for your application, the 70-300L will leave you dissatisfied even thought it is a great lens.

Maybe not.  Would you rather have a 70-200mm f/4L or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non-L?  The latter has 100mm more reach but is not as sharp.  The same could be said about the 100-400L vs  70-300L.  Reach is not always better if it means sacrificing image quality.

Quote
If you only occasionally need the reach perhaps you can get by with 70-200/2.8 plus some TC's but that involves compromises you have to be OK with (I agree that ergonomics of 2x on 70-200/2.8 are not great, uncomfortable to carry).

Or you could buy a 70-300L, have something of much more compact size and lesser weight than either of those two.  And, when you need the 400mm reach, you crop in post.  The point is instead of another monster sized lens you have something a bit more managable that is also sharper than the 100-400L.

Quote
The 100-400 is a compromise lens.  You can find other lenses that will beat it at each and every focal length but there aren't many options that provide the range and flexibility in one lens.  That's why it continues to sell well.  Lenses are just tools and just collecting all the best ones is not the recipe for happiness or success in your photography.  You have to get the ones that meet your needs.

This is true, everyone has their own opinions and preference, of course :)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12749
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #41 on: November 14, 2013, 03:49:14 PM »
Would you rather have a 70-200mm f/4L or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non-L?  The latter has 100mm more reach but is not as sharp.  The same could be said about the 100-400L vs  70-300L.  Reach is not always better if it means sacrificing image quality.


Your metaphor leaves sonething to be desired.  You can't really compare the IQ of the 100-400 @ 400mm with the IQ of the 70-300 non-L @ 300mm (as an analogy to the 100-400L vs the 70-300L).  Well, I suppose you can, but it's a little like comparing the prowess of the 10th place NFL team with your town's peewee football league - technically possible, but not very meaningful.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Ruined

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2013, 07:01:38 PM »
Would you rather have a 70-200mm f/4L or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non-L?  The latter has 100mm more reach but is not as sharp.  The same could be said about the 100-400L vs  70-300L.  Reach is not always better if it means sacrificing image quality.


Your metaphor leaves sonething to be desired.  You can't really compare the IQ of the 100-400 @ 400mm with the IQ of the 70-300 non-L @ 300mm (as an analogy to the 100-400L vs the 70-300L).  Well, I suppose you can, but it's a little like comparing the prowess of the 10th place NFL team with your town's peewee football league - technically possible, but not very meaningful.


I used an extreme analogy just to note that reach is not everything :)

And it is true that the 70-300L is sharper.  Yes, not as extreme difference, but it is still sharper.  So perhaps if you needed  to crop a little on a long shot it would not be as big of a deal...
« Last Edit: November 14, 2013, 07:05:37 PM by Ruined »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2013, 07:01:38 PM »

clostridium

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #43 on: November 14, 2013, 10:54:29 PM »

Quote
And the push-pull isn't really controversial - you either like it or you don't.  If you like it you are happy and don't care what the rest of the world thinks about it.  If you don't like it you don't get the lens.  I personally like it.

You kind of just defined controversial :)


I didn't actually.

I'm assuming that most people don't have a debate with themselves about whether they like something.  They either do or they don't.  Controversial means you have to debate something with others.  So as I said, you either like it or you don't.  There should be no internal controversy about this.  You rent it or try it at a store and make your decision.  End of any controversy right there unless you really care what you friends think about your lenses.  I personally don't.

Quote
Or you could buy a 70-300L, have something of much more compact size and lesser weight than either of those two.  And, when you need the 400mm reach, you crop in post.  The point is instead of another monster sized lens you have something a bit more managable that is also sharper than the 100-400L.


Cropping to get range is not a free thing to do.  You lose quality when you do that.  If you are only occasionally needing 400mm this may be a good compromise.  If you are frequently needing 400mm it is not a good compromise.  This gets back to my point that what lens you need all comes down to what you are going to use it for. 

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12749
    • View Profile
Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #44 on: November 14, 2013, 10:55:05 PM »
And it is true that the 70-300L is sharper.  Yes, not as extreme difference, but it is still sharper.  So perhaps if you needed  to crop a little on a long shot it would not be as big of a deal...

True.  But as Picard said, "The line must be drawn here. This far, no further."  I use the 100-400mm when the 600 is too big to bring, and if I brought it, it would probably have had the 1.4xIII on it for shooting birds.  When one should be using 840mm, using 300mm and cropping isn't ideal... 

OTOH, for family outings, the 70-300L is great.  It's smaller, lighter, and 70mm means I don't have to be too far away, while 100mm is less convenient.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife
« Reply #44 on: November 14, 2013, 10:55:05 PM »