EF 100-400mm ii vs. EF 200-400 with 1.4 TC

[LovePhotography]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

Based on test results, size, other attributes (range, external vs internal TC) and price, if you were in the market for a lens of this type, which would you buy? The new 100-400 or the 200-400 1.4?

 

[mackguyver]

My vote is for the 200-400 1.4x for AF and this at 800mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

At shorter FL, the edge is mostly in lower CA, vignetting and distortion, but I agree it's a small margin.

 

[Click]

The 200-400 1.4x ... if money is not a problem.

 

[AlanF]

My vote is for the 100-400 unless Mac buys me the 200-400 and carries it for me.

 

[DanoPhoto]

money not an issue = 200-400
reality = 100-400 (I went with this one)

 

[aldvan]

It's very impressive that, also in comparison with a top range lens like the 100-400 II (I just received it and it is outstanding...), the 200-400 is able to show a considerable difference in quality...

By the way, the 200-400's longer minimal focus lenght makes the two lenses very different...

 

[Freddie]

I borrowed the 200-400 11-months ago from Canon. I was lusting for it badly as I had always coveted the Nikkor zoom of the same focal length specs. I had the 200-400 for 14 days (minus shipping time) and took it to Bosqué del Apache, NM for a couple of days.
Sad to say, I fell out of lust for it after using it. It was too expensive, too large, too heavy, and too specialized for what I like to do. That's not to say I couldn't use it in any way. It was just not a good fit. It could replace my 500 V.1 in some situations but not very many. That would mean it had to be an addition to rather than a replacement for anything already in the kit. Another long lens that really should be tripod mounted is not what I needed. I have shot extensively with the 600 V.1 and 800 V.1 Canon lenses and I always am happy to come back to my 500.
I now have the new 100-400 II and couldn't be happier. I think I may try the 500 V.II now as that's probably the best solution for me.

 

[Jane]

I have both. I use them on very different occasions. Your question doesn't define the purpose for which you would want the lens. Without a purpose/need the answer is neither.

 

[rpt]

Although I voted for the 100-400, if money was not the limiting criteria, I would get both. The 100-400 would be used more.

 

[Jane]

I use the 100-400 II with 1.4X when I am walking around looking for birds/wildlife. When I go by vehicle, the 200-400 is my choice. The 200-400 is just too heavy to carry for long. Now what about the 400 DO II? That might be a great walk-around wildlife lens at only 1lb more than the 100-400 II.

 

[mackguyver]

My vote is for the 100-400 unless Mac buys me the 200-400 and carries it for me.

LOL, maybe, though I have torn both of my rotator cuffs and find carrying much of anything to be a painful chore these days. I've rehabbed them before and will again, but it takes a long time

While the weight is bad, what I really don't like is the size of 200-400 1.4x, which is why I stick with my 300 f/2.8 II. I also love shallow DOF and f/4 is acceptable, but I don't know if I'd like f/5.6 or f/8. If I could get closer to my subjects, it wouldn't matter.

 

[LovePhotography]

I have both. I use them on very different occasions. Your question doesn't define the purpose for which you would want the lens. Without a purpose/need the answer is neither.

The purpose for the lens purchase is whatever reason you choose. For the purposes of this poll, the assumption is that most people would/could only buy only one or the other.

 

[Mario]

If have tried both, it's apples and oranges, at least for wildlife.

If you're shooting mainly from hides and you don't have one of the big whites: 200-400.

If you want to walk around when shooting, or need a zoom in addition to a big white: 100-400 II.

Background blur will be nicer with the 200-400 and IQ of the 200-400 is very close to the 600 II.

You can also put an external 1.4x extender to the 200-400 and have a 280-560 F5.6, retaining the option to engage the internal 1.4x resuting in a 400-800 F8 and still be able to use AF on the higher end bodies.

Moneywise, it's also apples and oranges. If you have a big enough budget to buy the 200-400, you budget is probably healthy enough to add the 100-400 II as well .

Mario

 

[takesome1]

Would you rather have a Cadillac Escalade or a Chevy Volt, if money were no issue.
The Cadillac is larger and heavier. It uses more gas.
They will both get you where you are going.
I wonder how often this question comes up at the GM dealership.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'd buy the 100-400 II, because I already have the 600 II.

 

[HankMD]

The 200-400mm provided there's enough left for a porter or a mule.

 

[candyman]

I like the fact that it is a zoom in this range (up to 400mm) with f/4
But...it would make more sense to me if I would do a lot of wildlife (not zoo) and sports. And downside is size and weight
So I would choose the 100-400 II instead.
Personally I am looking at 300 f/2.8 II or the 400 f/4 II DO....

 

[FEBS]

I have the 200-400. Great lens, no regret. Flexibility with build in 1.4x is marvelous.
However, I think I also will buy the 100-400 II. As already mentioned by others, it all depends on what you want to do. On a safari, it would be for sure the 200-400. On a small travel trip, I would use the 24-105 on FF and the 100-400II on an APS or the 16-35 on FF and the 100-400II on FF, but those combinations purely based on the fact that I should keep the travel weight down.

 

[FEBS]

I'd buy the 100-400 II, because I already have the 600 II.

Yes, that would be a nice combination and a logical decision. 100-400II and 600 can travel together. 200-400 and 600 is hard to do on your own.

I have the 200-400, Think about the 100-400, but if then the 600 GAS keeps pushing, the 200-400 might be sold in favor of the 600mm. But I have time for that last step, as I think we might see a new 800 (DO) in the coming years.

I will keep the 200-400 next to the 100-400II, as the last one gives me a possibility to travel light and compact.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I will keep the 200-400 next to the 100-400II, as the last one gives me a possibility to travel light and compact.

For travel, I ended up preferring the more compact 70-300L, and eventually sold my (original) 100-400L.