Old Telephotos vs 100-400 II

[kennephoto]

I've been thinking about adding a tele lens to my arsenal but can't figure out which way to go. I rented the 100-400 II and compared it to my 70-200 2.8 II with the 2x and the 100-400 was better but not enough to justify buying it yet. I like that the 100-400 II is much smaller in my bag than the 70-200 with 2x. So I have also been looking in various classified and looking at old 300 2.8's and 400 DO which seem price wise seem to be hovering a tad higher than the 100-400 II. If I get either of those tele lenses I could have a 600 and 800, but when I go to thedigitalpicture.com and look at his test charts the 100-400 II is better or equal even with extenders! Is there any reason for me to consider higher prices of these old lenses? Also why are these old teles still really expensive even when they are beat up and not serviceable anymore? In case you're wondering I just want to use the lens for casual photography small prints to hang around the house and share with family.

 

[monkey44]

I would not spend MORE money for an OLD lens, unless it was superior in every way to the 100-400 v2 ...

I've been shooting with one on a 7D2 for several months - it's a very fine lens, worth every dime. IMO, you're asking for a worry if you buy an older lens and then can't service it if it ever needs it.

AND, you can gain even more because it is compatible with extenders ...

 

[Loswr]

...when I go to thedigitalpicture.com and look at his test charts the 100-400 II is better or equal even with extenders! Is there any reason for me to consider higher prices of these old lenses?

The 300/2.8L IS is sharper (or at worst as sharp) as the 100-400 II at comparable FL (i.e. 300mm bare, 400mm vs 300+1.4x, 100-400+1.4x vs. 300+2x)...and the supertele is at least one stop faster. Consider 200/2.8 vs 200/2, 300/4 vs 300/2.8 to get an idea of the cost of doubling the light intake.

I think you'll get better optical performance from the 300/2.8L IS than the 100-400 II. Also, once you add the 1.4x to the 100-400, you lose AF on the bodies in your signature, and on cameras with f/8 AF you can't select anything but the central point, whereas the 300/2.8 + 2x is f/5.6 with full AF capabilities.

Still...while small for a supertele, the 300/2.8 is still relatively big and heavy, and generally speaking I'd say the 100-400 II is more suited to 'casual photography'.

 

[danski0224]

I've been thinking about adding a tele lens to my arsenal but can't figure out which way to go. I rented the 100-400 II and compared it to my 70-200 2.8 II with the 2x and the 100-400 was better but not enough to justify buying it yet. I like that the 100-400 II is much smaller in my bag than the 70-200 with 2x. So I have also been looking in various classified and looking at old 300 2.8's and 400 DO which seem price wise seem to be hovering a tad higher than the 100-400 II. If I get either of those tele lenses I could have a 600 and 800, but when I go to thedigitalpicture.com and look at his test charts the 100-400 II is better or equal even with extenders! Is there any reason for me to consider higher prices of these old lenses? Also why are these old teles still really expensive even when they are beat up and not serviceable anymore? In case you're wondering I just want to use the lens for casual photography small prints to hang around the house and share with family.

The old lenses are the only way for the average enthusiast to get into the Canon "big white" club. Look at what a 300 2.8 VII costs compared to the non-IS USM version.

It is possible to find the "old" non-IS USM lenses in excellent condition, but yes, being unserviceable in the event of a breakdown is a concern. I certainly would not want to buy one that looked like it rolled around in the trunk between uses for years.

That said, they were designed to be used by professionals so they are robust. You could buy another one if the first one breaks and still spend less than what a VII lens costs.

The USM and IS version lenses (VI, I guess) may be close to being unsupported at Canon, if they are not there already.

I guess it comes down to how much you are willing to spend or risk.

The one difference that hasn't been mentioned yet is minimum focus distance (MFD). The 100-400 is a champ there. The VII big whites are also much improved with respect to MFD over the original USM non-IS lenses.

The new ones have very good IS and the non-IS ones don't... sounds stupid, but it is a difference between the two.

One place to compare physical dimensions, weight and MFD of Canon lenses: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1334232/0

Optically, there is little difference between the non-IS versions and the VII versions. They are supposedly the FD manual focus lenses updated to EOS, and some of those FD lenses are cheap in comparison and many can be converted with an Ed Mika kit.

There is much love and hate for the VI 400 DO. Make sure that you can check it out in person.