70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....

[davet4]

I apologize now, as this question has probably been asked many times. I am looking at getting a new zoom lens, I currently have the 5dMKIII, 24-105 kit lense and the 100mm macro

I am thinking of either the iconic 70-200 f2.8 (with either 1.4X or 2x convertor), or the new 100-400

Now, this is just a hobby for me and I take an assortment of pictures, landscapes, few portraits etc, but I would like someting with a bit more reach to start taking wildlife i.e. birds etc, the occasional BIF

I like the thought of the f2.8 on the 70-200…and also the range 70-400 (if you include the convertor) this gives me flexibility as I will not always be taking wildlife pic’s

But, the new 100-400mm has thrown something new into the mix and the thought of all that reach is tempting, but with f4.5 – f5.6 this would be make it mostly an outdoor lens

i know there is the 300, f2.8 prime, but this is only a hobby and i cannot justify the big $$$

So, If you had the option what lens would you go with, ?

 

[Maximilian]

I am thinking of either the iconic 70-200 f2.8 (with either 1.4X or 2x convertor), or the new 100-400
...
So, If you had the option what lens would you go with?

Hi davet4!

Tough question.

Looking at wildlife exclusively I would point at the 100-400. I have the 100-400V1 and really love it.
But together with one or two TCs the 70-200 is much more versatile. But it's also physically longer.

Seeing that you like do have an allround setup I would go for the 70-200. Why?
- already famous for its IQ
- more versatile
- F2.8 when you need it, e.g. indoors and for portrait (also animal portraits).
- already some days available. Therefore you'll get some discount that could buy you one TC
(I would take the 1.4x III first, because of the IQ)

Maybe you should rent one and try it out.

I hope this will help you.

 

[Marsu42]

I am thinking of either the iconic 70-200 f2.8 (with either 1.4X or 2x convertor), or the new 100-400

The standard answer is the question how often you'll use the tc. Judging from what you wrote, more flexibility sounds right for your purpose. The 70-100mm range is a big difference and enables you to keep the 70-xyz (I've got the 70-300L) on at most times, while 100mm is rather long even on full frame and forces you to change lenses more often.

But, the new 100-400mm has thrown something new into the mix and the thought of all that reach is tempting, but with f4.5 – f5.6 this would be make it mostly an outdoor lens

Note that f4.5 can be fine in "daylight indoors" with windows, esp. if supported by flash. Remember a "fast" lens has the disadvantage of a very thin dof which makes it impractical for many scenes, so you have to raise iso anyway.

 

[Canon1]

Based on what you have said, I would suggest the 70-200 f2.8ii.

It's a spectacular lens with the 1.4, but just ok with the 2x, so don't assume it's a great 400mm option.

If you intend to be at 400mm whenever this lens is on, than the 100-400 would be a better choice. (You mentioned this as occasional, however in my experience, the more reach you get... The more reach you want)

Both would be a great choice, however there is something to be said about canon's f2.8 lenses (prime and zoom) from a performance and iq standpoint... Just awesome.

 

[davet4]

Thanks all for the great responses, it's given me a few things to think about

 

[Cosmicbug]

Since you have the 24-105 already. I would go for the 100-400 mk2.
This will give you minimum overlap and the versatility of the reach at 400 which will open up bird and wildlife subjects to you. Add the 1.4X and you're done until the next purchase bug hits you!

 

[FEBS]

Since you have the 24-105 already. I would go for the 100-400 mk2.
This will give you minimum overlap and the versatility of the reach at 400 which will open up bird and wildlife subjects to you. Add the 1.4X and you're done until the next purchase bug hits you!

The same thoughts. I think the new 100-400 would perfectly fit. The 70-200 2.8 needs AFMA, and for sure in combination with the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders.

 

[Random Orbits]

Get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II first. f/2.8 is the maximum that you would want for indoors and it matches well with the 600ex-rt. I'll be a better portrait lens and more useful for kids at play/sports. Plus you won't be paying a premium because it is not a new lens.

Most of us that have both 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 70-300L or 100-400L will generally say that the 70-200 is more versatile and would be the first lens to get unless you know you will be predominately at 300mm and beyond. If you do develope a more keen interesting in birding in the future, then you can evaluate your options later. I'd wait for the reviews to come out comparing the new Sigmas to the existing Tamron to the new 100-400 II.

 

[TexPhoto]

As others have said, this is a tough question. Both lenses have some real advantages. As I shoot sports the f2.8 is critical for me. I simply could not shoot night games with an f5.6 lenses. And I do sometimes ad the 1.4X converter to this lens.

Part of me wants to recommend some combination of both. 70-200 and a 400mm f5.6 prime? But that is probably not going to be in the budget.

For general photography and "ocational" wildlife I'm going to say 70-200 f2.8 and converter. I just think the 70-200 f2.8 should be in the bag of almost any photographer, it is such a useful lens.

 

[candc]

You may want to try a sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Its also really good with the 1.4xiii to give you 168-420 f/4. Its a great lens but it is 7 1/2 lbs

 

[JPAZ]

Not intending to hijack this but here's another option to consider..........

Given the price of the new 100-400 (> $2000), how about a 70-200 f/2.8 ("street price" $1899 on CPW) and the Tammy 150-600 (about $1000)? I know this is a different approach and would cost about the same as just the 70-200 with the two TC's together. I know the Tammy has some limitations but gets great reviews for that price point. I agree, reach is contagious.

BTW, I have used the 100-400 M1 indoors and it is feasible so even though it is not as fast as the 70-200 2.8, it depends on what you are taking photos of.

 

[Marsu42]

Most of us that have both 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 70-300L or 100-400L will generally say that the 70-200 is more versatile and would be the first lens to get unless you know you will be predominately at 300mm and beyond.

Personally, I'm very fine with my 70-300L, and if I want "fast" I'd rather add fast(er) primes to that (I've already got the 100L macro). Even for indoor flash-supported work the 70-300L is ok, it's not like one stop @70mm is such a big deal when you're doing small prints.

The big advantage of the 70-200L is f2.8 on the long end which also enables you to use a tc on top of that. The disadvantage of the 70-200L is price, weight and bulk.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Hi Davet4, like you, this is a hobby for me as well. There has been lots of advice regarding the 70-200/2.8 and getting it first. This is sound, provided it is first and you intend to eventually have two lenses of this sizable investment that have large overlap - granted one being f/2.8. Well I went with the 70-200 and a 2xIII to use with my 7D (soon to become a mark II), and you can see the thread I started about the decision to replace it with the new 100-400 as long as it tests as well as expected.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23729.0

I can't justify to the "Boss" having both and the 400mm with using the 2x just isn't meeting my needs. Don't get me wrong, a lot of my favorite pictures come from this lens when used alone, but I'm hoping the 135L I just picked up for $760US (a 2011 in mint) will handle the shots that I liked the most from the focal length I used the most and the added benefit of another stop.

It's a tough choice, good luck!

 

[CurtL5]

I currently shoot with a 5DMiii and I use a 70-200 2.8 more than anything else.
I am about to pull the trigger on the 100-400 simply because I don't believe the 1.4x looks good at all in combination with my 70-200. It becomes noticeably soft and when I'm shooting sports, I need laser sharp images in addition to reach so I compromise the reach in favor of the night abilities of the 2.8

The 100-400 will give much more in the way of reach (obviously) but the 2.8 on the shorter lens is sure nice for the DOF and of course the light sensitivity. That being said, I can compensate (some) with the terrific ISO of the 5DMiii.

So to answer your question, I'm going to use BOTH but if it were one or the other, I'd prob stay with the 70-200

 

[JonAustin]

Well, the responses so far are all over the place, which simply shows that the right lens to choose depends on your personal preferences and intended uses.

Since the 100-400 II isn't available for purchase yet, you're obviously willing to wait for it, holding off on the 70-200 II in the meantime. So see if the 100-400 II's product reviews that eventually get published sway your thinking one way or the other.

Based on how I read your post, I'd get the 100-400 II if I were in your shoes. As others have posted, 70-200 + 2x TC isn't a great way to get to 400mm.

Disclaimer: I already have the 70-200 II, and plan to buy a 100-400 II.

 

[mackguyver]

I've had this debate a bit myself as I own the 70-200 but do a lot of wildlife work. The old 100-400 never made me happy, but I was very close to pre-ordering the 100-400. Then the 11-24 f/4 leaked and that interests me more, but I'll give you my thoughts:

70-200 f/2.8 IS II or f/4 IS are both brilliant lenses, with the f/4 being just as good, but costs much less and is much smaller & lighter. Both take the 1.4x extenders very well and are excellent for wildlife shooting. The 2.8 is also a great low light & event/sports lens, plus excellent portrait and general purpose lens. The f/4 can be used for these as well, but has less shallow DOF and needs 1 more stop. With the 2x, the f/4 AF struggles a bit more in lower light, but works. The f/2.8 takes the 2x very well, but becomes somewhat long and bulky, and isn't very pleasant ergonomically, but is still viable.

The new 100-400 looks to be extremely sharp & versatile, offering all of the above without the need to reach for extenders, with the tradeoff being less light, less shallow DOF, and bigger size/weight. Unless you need low light / action stopping ability (less critical with the newer DSLR bodies high ISO capabilities) or shallow DOF for portraits, I'd go for this lens as it's more versatile and 1 purchase vs. 2 or 3 (with the extenders).

 

[JonAustin]

The new 100-400 looks to be extremely sharp & versatile, offering all of the above without the need to reach for extenders, with the tradeoff being less light, less shallow DOF, and bigger size/weight.

Agree with your entire post; would just like to point out that the 100-400 II -- when compared to the 70-20 II -- is only 5% heavier (80g / .18lb), 5% larger diameter (5mm / 0.2") and actually a little shorter (6mm / .24") when collapsed. Add the 2x TC to the 70-200 II, and the size & weight advantages swing the other way, although the TC can be detached for packing.

 

[tayassu]

I would go for the 100-400 as I would rather use a bare lens than always slap on a TC...
You have a fast tele prime with the Macro, that area is covered and for wildlife, the 100-400 is surely the better choice.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My existing 100-400 is actually shorter than my 70-200mm but is a little larger in diameter. There is no practical difference in size.

However, if I only had one to choose from, the 70-200 f/2.8 MK II would be a easy first choice. I use the 100-400L a lot less, and could use my TC's if I wanted. Of course, I can use a TC on the 100-400L as well.

Get the 70-200, and, if you find yourself needing longer focal lengths, then consider a long telephoto. 400mm is not all that long on FF, even 600mm seems short for wildlife. In fact, my 600mm + 1.4 & 2X TC's stacked was not long enough for eagles that I could not get close to.

 

[nostrovia]

I apologize now, as this question has probably been asked many times. I am looking at getting a new zoom lens, I currently have the 5dMKIII, 24-105 kit lense and the 100mm macro

I am thinking of either the iconic 70-200 f2.8 (with either 1.4X or 2x convertor), or the new 100-400

Now, this is just a hobby for me and I take an assortment of pictures, landscapes, few portraits etc, but I would like someting with a bit more reach to start taking wildlife i.e. birds etc, the occasional BIF

I like the thought of the f2.8 on the 70-200…and also the range 70-400 (if you include the convertor) this gives me flexibility as I will not always be taking wildlife pic’s

But, the new 100-400mm has thrown something new into the mix and the thought of all that reach is tempting, but with f4.5 – f5.6 this would be make it mostly an outdoor lens

i know there is the 300, f2.8 prime, but this is only a hobby and i cannot justify the big $$$

So, If you had the option what lens would you go with, ?

I think I am in a relatively similar place, particularly with respect to the hobbyist part. I shoot with a crop (70D) and I have the 16-35 F4L, 40mm pancake, 50 F1.4 (old Canon version), 100L, and the 55-250 STM zoom. I shoot landscape, family portraits, family candids, macro, and more and more wildlife. I have coveted the 70-200 F2.8 for quite some time, and was planning to pick one up for the holidays this year. Now that the 100-400II has become a reality, I will be pre-ordering that instead (and praying that it get here before Christmas).

As I see it, and for what I shoot as an amateur, speed is a luxury that can usually be compensated with a flash. I've taken plenty of indoor shots with my 16-35 F4 with flash and have been quite happy with them, as I am sure you have done with your 24-105. They may not be "professional quality" with perfect bokeh, but I'm not selling pics of my family and friends anytime soon.

On the other hand, reach is a necessity when you need it. I like the IQ of the 55-250 STM, but often found that I wanted much more reach for wildlife, and that the AF really struggled on fast-moving objects like birds in flight. With the 100-400, I get a lot more reach without the AF hit of adding a teleconverter. If I need even more reach, I can still add TC's and use the DPAF, at least for stationary wildlife shots in good light. You would have the added benefit of the traditional AF with a 1.4x TC on your setup.

Just my 2 cents. Good luck with your decision - at the end of the day, your decision on which awesome lens to purchase is a great problem to have!