400 5.6 + 70-300 vs. 100-400II?

[NancyP]

Many running events are held early in the morning. There's something to be said about having an f/2.8 lens when shooting low light sports photos. If your usual shooting set-up puts you close to the runners' path, a 70-200 f/2.8 might be more appropriate.

 

[Don Haines]

Many running events are held early in the morning. There's something to be said about having an f/2.8 lens when shooting low light sports photos. If your usual shooting set-up puts you close to the runners' path, a 70-200 f/2.8 might be more appropriate.

I agree with Nancy.

Most (actually all) of the running events that I have been to were very crowded and I ended up using the 24-70 the most, and the 70-200 when I went for an individual runner.... there was not the sight lines for the 400 to have been useful.....

Of course, your event may be different.... these ones were 10,000 runners!

 

[Aichbus]

Until very recently I owned all three lenses, but I sold the 400 L. The image quality of the 100-400 II is better in the center and by far good enough in the corners. Contrast is better. IS is sooooo much better. 400 L is lighter and has less distortion, that's about it. The 70-300 is nice if you want to travel lighter. Image quality of my copy is perfect even on the 5DsR. So I take the 100-400 L (+ 1.4x converter) if I need he the reach, and the 70-300 L if I don't need the reach and want to travel light. After have not regretted selling my 400 L, although it is without a doubt a superb lens.

 

[Cory]

Until very recently I owned all three lenses, but I sold the 400 L. The image quality of the 100-400 II is better in the center and by far good enough in the corners. Contrast is better. IS is sooooo much better. 400 L is lighter and has less distortion, that's about it. The 70-300 is nice if you want to travel lighter. Image quality of my copy is perfect even on the 5DsR. So I take the 100-400 L (+ 1.4x converter) if I need he the reach, and the 70-300 L if I don't need the reach and want to travel light. After have not regretted selling my 400 L, although it is without a doubt a superb lens.

Thanks. I have my entire photography life figured out except for the long telephoto.
Tried out a 400 5.6 and instantly went "Oh yes". Rented a 100-400 I and II and both were sharp and crisp as can be, but it was the prime that produced "that look". Not saying I know what I'm talking about, but when the time comes I'll just do a pressure-on side-by-side and go with the winner then.
Thanks again.

 

[BeenThere]

If you are shooting mostly at the 400mm end, I would go for the prime. It works pretty well for BIF if you keep the shutter speed up. The 100-400mm is obviously more flexible, especially for shorter focus distances if you are using the other focal lengths much. I have both, but that’s overkill and i’m Too lazy to sell the older lens.

 

[sleepnever]

+1 for the 100-400 II. I use the crap out of mine for a variety of things. Great IS, image quality, handling. I also waited for the Canon Black Friday sale 2 years ago and picked it up refurb for $1500 out the door. You can get some really nice shots at f/5.6 on the long end.

 

[Duade Paton]

I have had the 400 5.6 prime for over 6 years and it is a fantastic lens, the weight, sharpness and cost are very good. The bad points as mentioned are the lack of IS, poor minimum focus distance of 3500mm (11.5ft) and the inability to recompose with the zoom.

The lack of IS is less of an issue for me these days with the newer cameras having much better ISO capabilities. I imagine you would want your minimum shutter reasonably high to freeze the action which reduces the need for IS.

If I had a choice I would go with the 100-400 but understand if you like the prime as it is set and forget so to speak. It is super fast and light.

I have written a review of the 400 5.6 with loads of bird photos at http://www.duadepaton.com/canon-ef400-5-6l-review-for-bird-photograph/ you may find useful. Good luck.

 

[Zen]

Have always been well satisfied with my 100-400; and almost always grab the 70-200 f4, over the 2.8, for my walking around lens. The 2.8 is just too heavy, esp for normal [whatever that is!] light shots.