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

[bluenoser1993]

One further thing to consider is the tracking of AF for the wildlife use. The 70-200 with the 2x will leave you with a single point which is fine for stationary targets or slow movers. The 100-400 will leave you the full spread of focus points so your AF can still track - sorry I can't remember which body you said you had, this will make more difference depending on body. It doesn't just come down to IQ difference, and I agree with what others have said, the 70-200 with the 2X attached isn't that great to hold.

 

[dgatwood]

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.

I tend to agree. I loved my 70–300L on crop, but after moving to full-frame, I find myself leaving the 1.4x extender on it almost nonstop, so I’m probably going to switch to the new 100—400L II at some point. I think night sports is pretty much the only plausible reason to go with the 70–200L f/2.8. For most normal situations where you need reach, f/4 and even f/5.6 is plenty fast enough, and if you don’t need reach, you’ll probably be using your 24–105L, so the 70–100 range won’t be a big loss.

I have the 24–105L and the 70–300L, and 84% of my shots were shot at focal lengths longer than 105mm. I don’t think I’d miss the overlap that much.

 

[davet4]

Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....update

A quick update...thanks for everyone's responses regarding the choice of my next purchase. After a lot of hard thinking i finally dropped the ££££ on the 70-200 f2.8.....

I have only had if for a few days, so I haven't had a change to play yet, but just the feel of it shows the build quality, just hope my skill can match its quality....

 

[dickgrafixstop]

another vote for the 70-300L - it's cheap enough compared to the others that you can buy a
crop body for the reach.

 

[LovePhotography]

I had the big white EF 35-350mm from the late 90's which I LOVED except for the length of the push/pull. It's still a very good high end one lens walking around solution. But, I sold it when I got my 6D to get the improved image quality of the 70-200 2.8. I really miss the extra length, though. I've got the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders, but if the reviews of the new 100-400mm come back pristine, I might have to drop the bucks for it, so to have only three lenses in my vacation bag 8-15mm, Sigma 24-105 Art and 100-400. That, with the rumored 11-22mm replacing the 8-15mm would pretty much cover 95% of what I'd shoot on a family vacay. Keep the 1.4 extender, and in three lenses be seemless from 11-600mm with great IQ. Wowzers. I'm assuming the 100-400 will have considerable pin cushion and barrel distortion, but also assuming that DxO can fix that in just moments. That's the other reason I sold the 35-350mm, no DxO module for it.

 

[Ryan85]

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.

+1