70-100mm VS. 100-400mm Questions?

[kat.hayes]

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.

 

[Labdoc]

You probably mean 70-200 f2.8. The 70-200 is considered "the" portrait lens by many. 100-400 awesome for birds and other wildlife. Also need something more wide angle (24-70) for walking around, events, landscape. Wide to ultra wide angle (less than 24mm) for landscapes, night photo and other effects like fisheye. A lot to learn and buy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Assuming you mean 70-200mm, in the context of portraits, the difference is f/2.8 vs. f/4.5-5.6. The wider aperture gives much better subject isolation.

 

[Jopa]

You can get a Bigma https://www.sigmaphoto.com/50-500mm-f45-63-apo-dg-os-hsm if you don't care about F stop at all.

 

[SkynetTX]

In my opinion anyone who is really interested in photography needs at least three lenses.
1. (ultra) wide angle – like the Tamron 10-24mm – for landscapes and some (huge) buildings if you can't get far enough from them.
2. general purpose – like the 24-70mm lenses – for smaller landscapes, buildings and events.
3. medium telephoto – like the 70-200mm lenses – for portraits and (not-that-)wildfile.
And if you are interested in it, you can have a macro lens: about 60mm if you want to shoot mainly flowers OR 100 or 180 mm if you want to shoot small animals.
Superzoom lenses makes no sense as their image quality is not better than the superzoom compact cameras but are much heavier and more expensive.
An f/2.8 lens is much faster than an f/5.6 and can better be used in low light conditions.

 

[AlanF]

In my opinion anyone who is really interested in photography needs at least three lenses.
1. (ultra) wide angle – like the Tamron 10-24mm – for landscapes and some (huge) buildings if you can't get far enough from them.
2. general purpose – like the 24-70mm lenses – for smaller landscapes, buildings and events.
3. medium telephoto – like the 70-200mm lenses – for portraits and (not-that-)wildfile.
And if you are interested in it, you can have a macro lens: about 60mm if you want to shoot mainly flowers OR 100 or 180 mm if you want to shoot small animals.
Superzoom lenses makes no sense as their image quality is not better than the superzoom compact cameras but are much heavier and more expensive.
An f/2.8 lens is much faster than an f/5.6 and can better be used in low light conditions.

"Superzoom lenses makes no sense as their image quality is not better than the superzoom compact cameras but are much heavier and more expensive"

Presumably you think that nature photographers are not really interested in photography and sports photographers also lack any interest with their big primes and zooms. The 100-400mms, 200-400mm, 150-600mms and others on a modern FF or APS-C are in a different league from superzoom compacts in terms of IQ and ability to AF quickly, which is why serious nature photographers carry the expensive and heavy lenses. But, are they all big and expensive? Some are cheaper and lighter than a 70-200mm f2.8.

 

[Sporgon]

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.

Assuming you mean 70-200mm, in the context of portraits, the difference is f/2.8 vs. f/4.5-5.6. The wider aperture gives much better subject isolation.

Even when comparing 400mm @ f/5.6 to 200mm @ f/2.8 ?

 

[Talys]

Yikes, what a minefield.

@SkynetTX - I don't think most people would call a 100-400 a superzoom. Most people consider superzoom lenses as ones that cover from wide angle to telephoto; even an 18-200mm would be more superzoom than 100-400.

To say that superzooms (in the context of wide to tele) make no sense is just inviting controversy. To say that the 100-400 makes no sense is just nuts, because the Canon 100-400L II is my favorite zoom lens, full stop, and I own the 70-200/2.8L IS II (which is an amazing lens).

@kat.hayes - I think that a lot of people missed your comment, "if I do not need focal lengths less than 100".

If you don't need a focal length < 100, the main reason to get a 70-200 would be to get f/2.8 -- that's assuming you want 2.8. But IMO, for portraiture, you may wish to consider a prime 2.8, like 100 or 135. A 100/2.8L IS has the added capability of macro and it's a whole lot lighter and cheaper than a 70-200/2.8L IS II.

If you don't need 2.8 consider the 70-200 f/4 IS, because it weighs a LOT less and is a lot cheaper. But it also has a much worse resell ratio, should you wish to upgrade in the future, because 70-200/2.8 is where the money's at.

If you want > 200mm -- though I'm not sure why you'd want more than 200mm for portraiture, the 100-400 is an amazing lens in just about every way you can imagine. It also has an very short MFD, meaning you can get within about 3 feet of your subject and photograph it at 100mm-400mm, which can let you take pictures of things like bugs. Back to portraiture, if you are close to your subject, you'll isolate it (blur the background). So even though you don't have 2.8, you can still get nice bokeh out of a 100-400L II. This is not the case with some other 100-400's, though.

One thing to keep in mind, though: 70-100mm covers a very useful focal range for portraiture. If I had to pick one portrait FL and was only allowed 1 FL, I would pick 85mm, but that's just personal preference.

And of course, you need to consider, what do you want to photograph in the focal range between 200-400? Why buy a $2,000 lens to get that top end of zoom, if you don't want to photograph anything in the top 50% of the tele end?

With regards to SkyNetTX's breakdown, although it generically makes sense, I disagree with the traditional "you need the trinity zoom" thing, because good glass in each of those categories -- just for zooms -- will cost an awful lot ($6000+ for 2.8L's), and why go spend all that if you don't really photograph a lot of things in those FLs? Or,to put it another way, it's perfectly legitimate to be really interested in ONLY one type of subject. And it also discounts the use of primes, which I think is just not good advice.

You can get a lot, for example, out of a cheap 50mm/1.8. If that fixes your hole between 24-70 (because you're willing to just move around for the small number of those shots you get), you'll get super sharp images for $100 instead of $2000, and you can always get something else later. Maybe an f/4, or whatever.

 

[unfocused]

Yikes, what a minefield...

You did an excellent of navigating the minefield and I can't think of anything to add or disagree with. Honestly I never even considered using the 100-400 as a portrait lens. Although it's not any heavier than the 70-200 and does have a shorter minimum focus distance, so I guess it would work. Personally, I don't generally shoot the 70-200 wide open because I like to get more than one eye in focus so even the smaller aperture isn't a real downside. I guess I think I'd feel a little silly using the 100-400 as a portrait lens, but that's not really a good reason.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

 

[Jopa]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.......

 

[MrFotoFool]

I will tell you my experience with both lenses, but your experience and needs may differ. I have owned the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) for a few years and briefly owned the 100-400 ii before trading it in last month.

Both are sharp, pro lenses and both are about the same size physically (at least when 100-400 is not zoomed out). The 70-200 (assuming you mean the f2.8 version) has an aperture that is significantly larger which allows for faster shutter speeds (and better blur when the focal lengths overlap).

The larger aperture also allows for a more responsive autofocus. I was surprised at the difficulty the 100-400 had when shooting dark subjects or cluttered situations (looking through a fence at the zoo). Scenes in which my 70-200 had no trouble at all were difficult to impossible to get with the 100-400.

The 70-200 maintains the large 2.8 aperture as you zoom out, while the 100-400 will change from 4.5 to 5.6 as you zoom out. Also the 70-200 is internal zoom, so that it physically does not extend when you zoom out. The 100-400 gets physically longer when you zoom out. Having gotten used to my 70-200, I found the physical extension mildly annoying.

When I walked around with the 100-400 attached, I was surprised at how much I missed being able to zoom back to 70mm. It seems like a small difference, but it is huge when trying to grab a more general view without changing lenses. Since I only have room in my backpack for one of the two telephotos, I finally got rid of the 100-400 because I would invariably take the other lens.

However, if you do a lot of birds or wildlife you still may find the extra reach of the 100-400 more practical for you.

 

[Jopa]

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.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

 

[tomscott]

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&#x27;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 &amp; Hugo de Chassiron-327 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Lara &amp; 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

 

[hne]

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

 

[AlanF]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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 author=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.[/quote]

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.