November 24, 2017, 01:48:45 PM

Author Topic: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?  (Read 5282 times)

tomscott

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Photographer & Graphic Designer
    • Tom Scott | Photography
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2017, 05:44:05 AM »
The mkII 100-400mm LIS is an excellent lens. It's one of the newest long lenses from Canon so it's AF and IS are spookily good. The IS is easily the best I've seen or used, you can literally shake the lens when it's engaged and the viewfinder doesn't move much. The AF is a massive upgrade from the older mk I model and is worth the upgrade for those two features alone. The new detachable lens mount is appalling and a bit of a joke. After market feet are essential for tripod work in poor weather. Optically, there's not much between the mkI and mkII in realy world use.
It's surprising how well a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and a 2x TC  fares against the 100-400 LIS II. The dedicated zoom has a fast AF system, is slightly sharper and the IS unit is better. But the 70-200 does very very well and can be easily considered for occasional or even frequent use.

Couldnt agree more. For someone on a budget the 70-200mm will give you the portrait lens and add a 1/4 or 2x and you get a very good tele lens.

I used the 70-200mm with this combo for a number of years as at Motorsport events meant I didnt need to carry twice the weight and the IQ between the two was negligible.

The AF is slower but as soon as you get used to it I had no problem at all. I didnt see a huge improvement in keepers with my 100-400mm MKII compared to the 70-200mm

Couple of shots with the 70-200MKII + 2x MKII extender

Puffin with a mouth full of Sand Eels, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Razorbill, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

BMW CSL 1973, Batmobile, Colin Turkington, Jet Super Touring Car Trophy, Silverstone Classic 2014 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Williams FW07C, Leyland #37, 1981, driven by C. D'Ansembourg, Legends of Modern F1, Silverstone Classic 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Nice thing is you can whip the extender off when you dont need it and get the full fat F2.8 lens for lower light or a different look or just because you need a wider angle of view

Porsche 962, BP Leyton House, Group C, twilight race, Silverstone Classics 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Lovely tool for portraiture

TSP_Mandle-444 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Lara & Hugo de Chassiron-327 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Lara & Hugo de Chassiron-334 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

TSP_Hardie (341 of 426) by Tom Scott, on Flickr

TSP_Hardie (354 of 426) by Tom Scott, on Flickr
6D MKII, 5D MKIII STOLEN, 7D MKII 70D 17-55mm F2.8 16-35mm F2.8 II L 24-70mm F2.8 L 24-105mm F4 L 70-200mm F2.8 II L 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 II L 2x II 1.4X III 580EX

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2017, 05:44:05 AM »

hne

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
  • Gear limits your creativity
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2017, 06:29:38 AM »
Owning the previous version of both the 70-200/2.8 L IS and 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS as well as having tried taking portraits with both, here are my experiences:

  • You need at about 2 meter distance (6.5 foot) distance for a headshot at 100mm, which is 40% more than what you need with 70mm. This makes a surprisingly large difference.
  • The subject separation feels roughly the same. The aperture size at the ends of the zoom range is close to identical and if you compensate the longer zoom by adding those 40% distance, you'll be using 40% longer focal length for the same framing too, causing the aperture size to be roughly equal.
  • People get shy, curious or irritated when they see you taking pictures no matter which huge white lens you're wielding
  • The really big difference outside of longer reach with longer lens is the amount of foreground and background you get in your shot. With 70mm you get some of the background, like a headshot with a car in the back would have the car being two parking lots further down the road. At 400mm you'd have your subject a car length away and the car would be on the other side of the next block
Preferred gear: 5D IV, 35/1.4L, 85/1.8, 70-200/2.8L IS, Elinchrom RX
Backup: 5D II, 17-40/4L, 100-400/4.5-5.6L, Yongnuo + 622

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3147
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2017, 08:28:42 AM »
Even when comparing 400mm @ f/5.6 to 200mm @ f/2.8 ?

That would work.  Just give your subject a walkie-talkie so you can tell him/her when to smile.

Neuro, you are just so out of touch. What with the H*rv*y W**nst**n scandal, it is now imperative that the photographer uses a supertelephoto lens to view the subject, and not be any closer. The photographer and subject communicate by cell phone and not by walkie talkie as the photographer instructs the subject to take a selfie and to adjust the bokeh using the iPhone.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6547
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2017, 08:35:11 AM »
Even when comparing 400mm @ f/5.6 to 200mm @ f/2.8 ?

That would work.  Just give your subject a walkie-talkie so you can tell him/her when to smile.

LOL that's so true. Especially when taking a full body pic of an adult. You're getting a pretty unique "compressed" look, but the lighting should be also appropriate otherwise people's faces start looking weird.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebz6Kow-ywc

Mind you I hate the term compression when people really mean perspective, but that's another thread.......

I mean what I mean ;)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)
"Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion and compression distortion". Has nothing to do with the lens but the distance to the subject.

You might well mean what you mean, but using that article as any kind of authoritative confirmation is ludicrous. The author makes some good points but I disagree with the terminology which has no citations or confirming notes and the wording is ambiguous or plain wrong in places.

It isn't just the distance to the subject, it is the relationship between the differences between the position of the photographer and the various items within the image.

Besides, I wasn't referring to you about using compression because you had the good sense to cover it's use with quotation marks, I meant the guy in the video and various other educators who clearly never had any kind of formal education in photography and just repeat, parrot fashion, expressions they hear.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21776
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2017, 09:26:27 AM »
I mean what I mean ;)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)
"Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion and compression distortion". Has nothing to do with the lens but the distance to the subject.

You might well mean what you mean, but using that article as any kind of authoritative confirmation is ludicrous. The author makes some good points but I disagree with the terminology which has no citations or confirming notes and the wording is ambiguous or plain wrong in places.

The authors of the wiki page make some egregious errors.  For example:

Quote from: Wikipedia
How focal length affects perspective: 18mm (wide-angle), 34mm (normal), and 55mm (modest telephoto) at identical field size achieved by different camera-subject distances. Notice that the shorter the focal length and the wider the angle of view, perspective distortion and size differences change.

What that statement should read is, "How focal length affects perspective: it doesn't."

At least looking at the Wiki page has one personal benefit...it reminds me of chocolate stout.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Jopa

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1056
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2017, 11:28:13 AM »
It isn't just the distance to the subject, it is the relationship between the differences between the position of the photographer and the various items within the image.

^ My 6 y.o. would probably say the same, and there is nothing wrong with it. IRL it's actually much simpler and covered in 8th grade physics (in my country) and relies on basic geometry
As you can see from the picture, the distance between two projected points depends on the viewing angle: wider the angle - more apart the projected points. Assuming you're framing the same subject, only the distance will affect your angle (and perspective distortion).

This is probably a better article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view, but I was referring to the term "compression", and posted a different link mentioning compression.

Jopa

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1056
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2017, 11:32:31 AM »
The authors of the wiki page make some egregious errors.

John, that's Wikipedia, and if you feel something is wrong - remember you can always contribute to the world knowledge database. And also maybe throw a few bucks into their current fundraiser ;)


What that statement should read is, "How focal length affects perspective: it doesn't."

It doesn't indeed.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2017, 11:32:31 AM »

Besisika

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • How can you stand out, if you do like evrybdy else
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2017, 04:03:47 PM »
I'm fairly new to photography.

1. I'm wondering, why not just get one long lens like a 100-400mm and use it instead of the 70-100mm if I do not need focal lengths less than 100?

2. How is the 100-400mm VS. a 70-100mm for portrait photography?

Thanks.
I don't see any difference between 135mm at 5.6 shot on 100-400mm and 70-200mm. Maybe there is but I don't see it.
Both sharp at 5.6 - 11, both have IS and both allows you for 100-200mm
When shooting in studio you mainly shoot at 5.6-11 anyway. Outdoor, background separation depends mainly on the subject to background distance so if you like the look of 5.6 there is no difference between the two lenses.
If you intend to shoot wide open, for similar background blur, then yes the two lenses are totally different. One achieve that blur mainly through F-stop (2.8), while the other through compression. That affects not only the amount of light needed but the working distance as well. But if you want a specific F-stop at a specific focal length (ex 135mm 5.6) both lenses should do the job equally very well.

For portraiture though, I prefer a prime because of weight. Bringing up and down 500 times within 2 hours a camera+ lens has an effect on your health.
So for the same working distance and F-stop I prefer a 135mm or 200mm prime (indoor with available light: 85 1.2). I bring only the 70-200 when I expect a rain, snow or dusty environment.

You would see big difference between the two when you incorporate ambient light. The 100-400 will give you only 5.6 and as a result you might need a bunch of that ambient light. This becomes obvious indoor.
Outdoor, 100-400 maybe better if you use an ND filter instead of HSS, because you start right away from 5.6. On overcast day, you may not even need any ND. During bright sunny day just a few stops while the 70-200 requires 2 stops more and your camera might have more issues focusing. When using HSS, the 100-500 needs HSS only during bright sunny day.

Finally, when shooting in crowd (not a typical portraiture but becomes more and more popular - cosplay, zombie walk, fashion show, etc) you will need an F-stop wider to knock out the background faster under the same working distance and again prime wins.
Zoom would be important only when you shoot without the ability to zoom with your feet (example fixed position when models are posing by themselves for many people to shoot at same time - fashion event, sport event, etc)

Hope that helps,

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3147
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2017, 04:25:14 PM »
It isn't just the distance to the subject, it is the relationship between the differences between the position of the photographer and the various items within the image.

^ My 6 y.o. would probably say the same, and there is nothing wrong with it. IRL it's actually much simpler and covered in 8th grade physics (in my country) and relies on basic geometry
As you can see from the picture, the distance between two projected points depends on the viewing angle: wider the angle - more apart the projected points. Assuming you're framing the same subject, only the distance will affect your angle (and perspective distortion).

This is probably a better article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view, but I was referring to the term "compression", and posted a different link mentioning compression.

The diagram you have downloaded from wikipedia is inconsistent with the laws of refraction. It has rays passing through the lens unrefracted and they don't even go though the centre of the lens but intersect in front of the centre. Any 8th grade student who has the minimum of knowledge about refraction would know that the rays would be bent by the front surface of the lens and by the rear surface. A simplified diagram would at least have them going through the centre.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 05:19:00 PM by AlanF »
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

Jopa

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1056
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2017, 06:52:46 PM »
It isn't just the distance to the subject, it is the relationship between the differences between the position of the photographer and the various items within the image.

^ My 6 y.o. would probably say the same, and there is nothing wrong with it. IRL it's actually much simpler and covered in 8th grade physics (in my country) and relies on basic geometry
As you can see from the picture, the distance between two projected points depends on the viewing angle: wider the angle - more apart the projected points. Assuming you're framing the same subject, only the distance will affect your angle (and perspective distortion).

This is probably a better article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view, but I was referring to the term "compression", and posted a different link mentioning compression.

The diagram you have downloaded from wikipedia is inconsistent with the laws of refraction. It has rays passing through the lens unrefracted and they don't even go though the centre of the lens but intersect in front of the centre. Any 8th grade student who has the minimum of knowledge about refraction would know that the rays would be bent by the front surface of the lens and by the rear surface. A simplified diagram would at least have them going through the centre.

I suggest you to read the article which says "Treat the lens as if it were a pinhole at distance S2" before making "smart" comments. It's done... guess what?... for simplicity. Such type of drawing is called schematics. Next time please do not forget to take into account space warps and relativity theory ;)
« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 09:14:57 PM by Jopa »

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3147
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2017, 03:26:35 AM »
The reason I wrote my comment was that you made a disparaging remark implying that privatebydesign is not up to 8th grade physics in your country. The simple facts are that a schematic is designed to illustrate the basic principles, and this figure doesn't. The figure shows light rays that hit outside the pinhole and don't go through it. It should have had the lines crossing through the pinhole. It is truly sloppy and something that should fail 8th grade physics.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

Jopa

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1056
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2017, 11:57:35 AM »
The reason I wrote my comment was that you made a disparaging remark implying that privatebydesign is not up to 8th grade physics in your country. The simple facts are that a schematic is designed to illustrate the basic principles, and this figure doesn't. The figure shows light rays that hit outside the pinhole and don't go through it. It should have had the lines crossing through the pinhole. It is truly sloppy and something that should fail 8th grade physics.

Don't you think that privatebydesign is NOT an 8th grader, but a grown up man that most likely doesn't need your advocacy?
8th grade physics was mentioned because it was really in 8th grade, and I'm not sure when this topic is supposed to be learned in the US. It could be sooner or later - I simply don't have this information. It was mentioned just for the reference, as simple as that, no need to try finding a negative inner meaning unless you always see the world in dark colors...

Now about schematics. Another article from the resource you love :) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schematic, please read: "A schematic usually omits all details that are not relevant to the information the schematic is intended to convey". And here is an explanation for you: all the wiki authors wanted to demonstrate is a basic principle avoiding overloading it with unnecessary details. If you think you could do better - you are very welcome to draw your own chart and upload to Wikipedia so everybody can enjoy your precise drawings, and dummies like me could have access to better materials to copy-paste into CR :)

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3147
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2017, 12:33:21 PM »
As you asked.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2017, 12:33:21 PM »

Jopa

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1056
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2017, 12:55:54 PM »
As you asked.

 :D  upload it to wiki!

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3147
Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #29 on: October 19, 2017, 01:16:49 PM »
You do appreciate a good schematic!
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?
« Reply #29 on: October 19, 2017, 01:16:49 PM »