200-400 f/4 L IS vs 100-400 vII (hypothetical)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
F

FunPhotons

Mar 5, 2012
402
0
7,526
#1
I max out at 200mm with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and have been holding out for a 100-400 II which will come eventually, probably in the not too distant future would be my guess. I can wait however so no major problem either way.

Now we know Canon is coming out with the 200-400, and while it will be horrifically expensive I could swing it. I'm looking to use a longer lens for wildlife photography.

So I've not used any of the L telephotos, any thoughts on these choices versus any of their other tele's from folks more experience than me? Consider issues such as weight, usability (short and long focal lengths), etc. Thanks for your thoughts!
 
#3
The 100-400mm L has been coming for the last 7 or 8 years. The new Nikon 80-400 may turn out to be excellent, or just another disappointment with better IS. In that case, we won't see a 100-400mm MK II.
Do not expect a $3000 lens to be equal to a $11,000 lens. However, a lens that can be hand carried rather than require a truck load of accessories will likely get a lot more use.
I sold my 600mm L and the Wimberly Head and heavy tripod in favor of the 100mmL for that very reason.
 
Upvote 0
#4
Good thoughts. Thanks for the reminder NA - yeah I like the flexibility of the new zoom but for that coin getting a prime might make sense too.

And Mt Spokane - yes I should carefully consider whether I'll want to carry that thing around!
 
Upvote 0
#5
I handled the 200 - 400 L this weekend at Focus on Imaging - it is no way comparable to the 100 - 400, it's got the built-in TC which is smoot, it's way better for IQ, is faster focussing and much heavier, to the extent that you would not handhold it for more than a minute or three - it's a beast of a lens but is massively clever - thanks to handling it the lens is no longer on my "buy" list, but has moved to the top of my "hire" list when it comes out!
 
Upvote 0
#6
DavidGMiles said:
I handled the 200 - 400 L this weekend at Focus on Imaging - it is no way comparable to the 100 - 400, it's got the built-in TC which is smoot, it's way better for IQ, is faster focussing and much heavier, to the extent that you would not handhold it for more than a minute or three - it's a beast of a lens but is massively clever - thanks to handling it the lens is no longer on my "buy" list, but has moved to the top of my "hire" list when it comes out!
Click to expand...

What do you mean by clever, the built in TC? Also what do you mean by "hire"?
 
Upvote 0
#9
dilbert said:
neuroanatomist said:
Elevator :: lift
Apartment :: flat
Rent :: hire
Click to expand...
A flat is not the same as an apartment.
Click to expand...
Oh. Except...that's how the many colleagues I have who've relocated here from the UK refer to it. Then there's Wikipedia, "An apartment (in American English) or flat in British English is a self-contained housing unit (a type of residential real estate) that occupies only part of a building," and Merriam-Webster includes in their definition of flat, "5. chiefly British : an apartment on one floor," and the the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language lists 'apartment' as the American English equivalent to the British English 'flat'.

Now, if you want to state that a flat is not the same as a lens which is not the same as a camera, then I'll believe you... ;)
 
Upvote 0
#10
bwfishing said:
I think he is referring to the clever way they tucked a TC (teleconverter) into the lens.
Click to expand...

Exactly - and it's a very smooth operation - you could operate it without taking your eye away from the viewfinder

neuroanatomist said:
Elevator :: lift
Apartment :: flat
Rent :: hire

Queen's English and all that... ;)
Click to expand...

100% correct!

It's a lovely lens, but aside from price the other criteria are wrong for me, it's just too large for my regular kit
 
Upvote 0
#13
neuroanatomist said:
Elevator :: lift
Apartment :: flat
Rent :: hire

Queen's English and all that... ;)
Click to expand...

OT - but: amazing how a small bit of water (i.e., the pond) can change a common language so we no longer can understand each other
 
Upvote 0
#14
FunPhotons said:
I max out at 200mm with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and have been holding out for a 100-400 II which will come eventually, probably in the not too distant future would be my guess. I can wait however so no major problem either way.

Now we know Canon is coming out with the 200-400, and while it will be horrifically expensive I could swing it. I'm looking to use a longer lens for wildlife photography.

So I've not used any of the L telephotos, any thoughts on these choices versus any of their other tele's from folks more experience than me? Consider issues such as weight, usability (short and long focal lengths), etc. Thanks for your thoughts!
Click to expand...

The 200-400 is fairly certain. The fate of the 100-400 is unknown.

If weight is of course stay away from the long glass - 400F2.8, 500F4, 600F4, 200-400F4, and maybe even the 300F2.8

All are very sharp and expensive.

Compromises might be the 300F2.8 (repeating myself) or the 400DO which sharpens up well.
For lighter class the 100-400 (current version) has mixed reviews and variation lens to lens. Or consider the 70-300L, great lens, light weight but a bit shorter, and finally consider the 400F5.6. Light weight but no IS.

Wait (for Godot) for replacement for the 100-400 (if it comes) or an update to the 400 F5.6. All seem reasonable that Canon would replace so consider them definite maybes.

Bottom line is do you want long fast glass. Then you will lighten your wallet and weigh down your camera bag. If you can accept slower glass (perhaps not as sharp, but never-the-less good), look for a good copy of the 100-400, 70-300L (not quite as long) or the 400 F5.6
 
Upvote 0
#15
I would forget about the 200-400mm L. It has been announced for over 2 years (I think) and has yet to come out. I wonder why it is taking so long to come out with that lens...makes you wonder.

I would get the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. Armed with the 1.4x and 2x III converters you have a very capable 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6 lens. It is cut your eyes sharp using either extender wide open. Fast AF too.

Plus it is probably lighter and cheaper than the 200-400mm will be.

Cheers,
Jason
 
Upvote 0
#16
Rather than wait I got myself a 2nd-hand 100-400 for Xmas and went a'shooting in Kenya. The idea is to wait for future announcements, reviews & maybe price drops, and then sell the 100-400 to offset whatever comes next. A couple hundred euros or so for a years rental seems worth it. Really happy with the results, though my only other experience with L lenses is my trusty 24-105. Before that I was a Rebel user. Would have been cool to have a 1.4x TC but had already spent too much. Pull zoom didn't completely lock, this looks like a common issue as most 2nd-hand lenses on the site mentioned this defect. Not too big an issue in most cases, this isn't exactly a walkaround lens.

Hand held leaning on the van roof (roof comes up) didn't even use the beanbag I brought along. Glad I read ahead and learned the tripod would have been pretty useless. Main difficulty was handling my kids at the same time ;-)
 
Upvote 0
#17
jasonsim said:
I would get the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. Armed with the 1.4x and 2x III converters you have a very capable 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6 lens. It is cut your eyes sharp using either extender wide open. Fast AF too.
Click to expand...
This I 100% agree with this - it's likely what I will be doing - the 300mm f/2.8L IS II lens is just amazing - the attached image was shot in Kenya last September, fading light getting worse, leopard probably about 40' away, Teleconvertor on, shot from the top of a vehicle - all the factors say that this should not have been usable but it is

PS I hired this lens as I was still mulling over the 200 - 400
 

Attachments

  • 2012-09-23_18-11-16.jpg
    2012-09-23_18-11-16.jpg
    915.2 KB · Views: 700
Upvote 0
#18
sposh said:
Rather than wait I got myself a 2nd-hand 100-400 for Xmas and went a'shooting in Kenya. The idea is to wait for future announcements, reviews & maybe price drops, and then sell the 100-400 to offset whatever comes next.
Click to expand...

+1. I own the 100-400L. It isn't perfect, but takes great pictures and is one of my two most used lenses. Great for birds and other wildlife.

So, my recommendation would be to buy what is for sale now and sell it if something better comes out. It is the difference of having a picture versus not. Based on what you said, that would leave you with either the current 100-400L or or one of the current big white lenses.
 
Upvote 0
#20
Don Haines said:
and never try to hand-hold a lens that won't fit in your boot :)

and Neuro is right.... an apartment is a flat
Click to expand...

Wait, wait...boot...is that the things on my feet today, to make it easier to walk through the 11" (or is that 28 cm?) of snow that's fallen so far here in Boston...or is that the large compartment in my car where I carry groceries, etc.? Because a 70-200/2.8 won't easily fit in the former, but an 800/5.6 will easily fit in the latter.

:P :P :P
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AlanF
Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm
Replies
33
Views
7K
EthenJ
E
Fbimages
Svalbard and Arctic pack ice, summer 2025
Replies
16
Views
986
ArdoSmith
A
LSXPhotog
RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM
Replies
75
Views
17K
PinholeR5
P
K
Auto-focus performance/panning test: RF100-500 vs EF 300/2.8 II vs EF200-400
Replies
9
Views
6K
Click
Click
axtstern
R7 is a Game Changer for me
Replies
11
Views
8K
tron
T
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu