The 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III for wildlife

[Rienzphotoz]

I went through the same dilemma ... so I thought and thought and thought, only to end up selling my EF 100-400 L IS and getting 2 Sigma 150-500 OS lenses, one for Canon and another for Nikon ... (don't ask why)

 

[clostridium]

As usual I think it depends really on what you are shooting as far as wildlife. I have the 70-200/2.8 II plus the 1.4 and 2 TC's and also have the good old 100-400. I like both of them a lot depending on the application.

There is no doubt that at the shorter end the 70-200 smokes the 100-400 though honestly unless the shot needs the 2.8 or 4.0 you can't tell the difference unless you start pixel peeping a bunch - the biggest difference for me is the AF and the significantly improved IS.

If you are looking at the longer end (200-400) as others have said the quality of the 70-200 with TC's is very good and probably better with a 1.4x and roughly equivalent with a 2x. The problem is that once you put the 2x TC on the 70-200 you lose your flexibility on the wide end without swapping out TC's. If you are in an adverse environment or need rapid flexibility in focal length that could be a real issue.

If the light is going to be potentially lower you are better off with the 70-200 +/- the 1.4x and cropping some. The wider lens and the better IS makes a big difference in this setting. On safari trips I make sure I have a body with the 70-200/2.8 mounted in the early morning or late evenings where the 100-400 would struggle to AF and require significantly greater ISO.

Of course if you have a crop body the variables move a bit so bear that in mind. The 100-400 is the jack of all trades master of none. It is all about compromises but it has so much flexibility that it stays relevant even 15 years after it was released. I eagerly await the new version assuming I can afford it which seems unlikely.

 

[DaveMiko]

I went through the same dilemma ... so I thought and thought and thought, only to end up selling my EF 100-400 L IS and getting 2 Sigma 150-500 OS lenses, one for Canon and another for Nikon ... (don't ask why)

That's out of the question for me. I would never do that. As far as myself is concerned, I think that the logo "Canon" means the foremost quality possible, and that the red ring is almost the equivalent of the Holy Grail. You see, there's a reason why they say: You get what you pay for!!!!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I sold my 100-400L and 400mm f5.6L after testing my 70-200II LIS and 2x TC together.
Optically, the 70-200 combo is very strong. The IS is better and the AF is a little slower but more accurate.
Generally it's better to use a native lens instead of converters....but with such a sharp lens like the 70-200, it's not a problem. The 70-200 combo is heavier and more bulky.

 

[mhvogel.de]

...What do you guys think?

maybe the comparison (pls. copy the whole link in your browser):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

helps you to make the desicion (although it's with the II-version of the extender).

the 1.4 extender clearly is less of a comromise (img-quality-wise), but 280mm might be a little short.

the 100-400 is not a bad lens, especially if we look at the price. resale-value (%) might be bigger then the one of the extender only.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I went through the same dilemma ... so I thought and thought and thought, only to end up selling my EF 100-400 L IS and getting 2 Sigma 150-500 OS lenses, one for Canon and another for Nikon ... (don't ask why)

That's out of the question for me. I would never do that. As far as myself is concerned, I think that the logo "Canon" means the foremost quality possible, and that the red ring is almost the equivalent of the Holy Grail. You see, there's a reason why they say: You get what you pay for!!!!

I agree with you, for the most part ... I prefer sticking to Canon but there are times, when I buy from other manufacturers ... I'm not recommending Sigma to you or anyone else who is willing to pay for the 100-400 L, just sharing what I did ... but, I did get 2 Sigma 150-500 OS lenses for the price of one Canon 100-400 L IS, nevertheless I get around 85% of the image quality of 100-400 L, with the Sigma lens ... so I'd say I got more than my money's worth.

 

[Lurker]

I personally don't care for the ergonomics of the 70-200 on the 2x. With the lens and weight so far forward I have to have my hand extended too far to get proper balance and to reach the controls. This makes it hard to hand hold and it even seems clumsy on a tripod/monopod.

I shoot birds more than anything else so I found I was @ 400 most of the time so I gave up the 100-400 and bought the 400 f/5.6.

 

[Krob78]

400mm isn't often enough reach for me, even with the ability to crop my ff images fairly strong. Often times, the AF just isn't enough if my subject is a little further.

Why not an extender on the 100-400mm? The Mk III now AF's at f/8... has anyone used that combo? Save some money over keeping all my lenses and buying a 500mm or a 600mm... no? Would IQ be that much more deteriorated?

Just wondering! :

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

400mm isn't often enough reach for me, even with the ability to crop my ff images fairly strong. Often times, the AF just isn't enough if my subject is a little further.

Why not an extender on the 100-400mm? The Mk III now AF's at f/8... has anyone used that combo? Save some money over keeping all my lenses and buying a 500mm or a 600mm... no? Would IQ be that much more deteriorated?

Just wondering! :

Its usable with a 1.4X extender, I prefer that over my 70-200 with two extenders.

400mm is often not enough for small birds.

Here is one with my 100-400L from fairly close (~20 ft) with a 1.4X and 5D MK III. Even so, its cropped a lot.

There is some movement of the leaves, I think it was wind. Lens was wide open and 1/500 exposure. ISO 100. I could have stopped it down or used a faster shutter by jumping to ISO 400, but there was little time, since small birds move around quickly. I was photographing and comparing a SX50 with my 100-400L + extender when he flew up to our crab apple tree, was there for a couple of minutes. There were a pair of them around for a few weeks.

Here is the female taken with the Canon SX50 HS. If you need portable and have good light, its excellent, but the zoom moves too fast, and its hard to accurately frame a small bird. I cropped the edges away.

 

[Ruined]

Maybe it has already been mentioned, but why not the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM?

Excellent IQ & IS comparable to the 70-200, better than the 100-400 - not quite as much range. But significantly shorter and lighter than both of the other options you listed. Could be a more practical lens out in the field.

If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.

The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe it has already been mentioned, but why not the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM?

Excellent IQ & IS comparable to the 70-200, better than the 100-400 - not quite as much range. But significantly shorter and lighter than both of the other options you listed. Could be a more practical lens out in the field.

If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.

Mentioned by me...and that's why I also have the 70-300L.

 

[WPJ]

Maybe it has already been mentioned, but why not the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM?

Excellent IQ & IS comparable to the 70-200, better than the 100-400 - not quite as much range. But significantly shorter and lighter than both of the other options you listed. Could be a more practical lens out in the field.

If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.

The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).

controversial yes, but I'm in the love it camp, push pull is just so intuitive and natural to me.

 

[dufflover]

Yeah love it or hate it thing. I love it. Overall don't care; I can use both pretty much fine.

Personally I didn't think there was enough difference between 200 and 300 for the 70-300 L and didn't see the point when it was also f/5.6; rather have 400mm then. Luckily (?) my 100-400 is reasonably good for me to not wish I had extra sharpness like I'm sure the 300 would have.

 

[Krob78]

Maybe it has already been mentioned, but why not the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM?

Excellent IQ & IS comparable to the 70-200, better than the 100-400 - not quite as much range. But significantly shorter and lighter than both of the other options you listed. Could be a more practical lens out in the field.

If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.

The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).

controversial yes, but I'm in the love it camp, push pull is just so intuitive and natural to me.

The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).

Oh, and twice the reach...

 

[clostridium]

...

If I had the cash, I'd use the 70-200 f/2.8 sans TC when the wide aperture is needed, and the 70-300 when more range, less weight/size was needed and aperature less important... They complement each other well.

The 100-400 I think you will always be stuck with a heavier+longer lens even if redesigned, and it doesn't differentiate itself as much from the 70-200 as the 70-300 does (aside from the controversial push-pull zoom).

Others have pointed this out as well but the lens differentiates itself by having twice the reach as the 70-200 and 33% more reach than the 70-300. And the 70-300 can't mount Canon TC's (not sure what quality is with alternatives - might not be bad) while the 100-400 can and still AF on a 5d3 and still provide decent quality.

And the push-pull isn't really controversial - you either like it or you don't. If you like it you are happy and don't care what the rest of the world thinks about it. If you don't like it you don't get the lens. I personally like it.

It all comes back to what you are doing with it. If you need the 400mm reach for your application, the 70-300L will leave you dissatisfied even thought it is a great lens. If you only occasionally need the reach perhaps you can get by with 70-200/2.8 plus some TC's but that involves compromises you have to be OK with (I agree that ergonomics of 2x on 70-200/2.8 are not great, uncomfortable to carry).

The 100-400 is a compromise lens. You can find other lenses that will beat it at each and every focal length but there aren't many options that provide the range and flexibility in one lens. That's why it continues to sell well. Lenses are just tools and just collecting all the best ones is not the recipe for happiness or success in your photography. You have to get the ones that meet your needs.

 

[pharp]

I find the image quality to be equivalent in real-world shots, although when I set up my ISO 12233-type chart, the 100-400 fares ever so slightly better at 400mm. My concern is less about weight, and more about the shorter (retracted) length of the 100-400 compared to the combo.

I wonder if a retractable prime would be a hit? A 400mm lens that folds down to 7" - I can see some possibilities if also lighter and faster than the 100-400 @ 400.

 

[dufflover]

That last one won't be possible, if you mean keeping with a 70-200 style size. (is that 7"?)
As you know a 400/4 would and has that large front element. At that size collapsible is somewhat redundant (and not cheap as it is lol)

 

[pharp]

That last one won't be possible, if you mean keeping with a 70-200 style size. (is that 7"?)
As you know a 400/4 would and has that large front element. At that size collapsible is somewhat redundant (and not cheap as it is lol)

Of course its possible - the 100-400 is quite compact folded. The question is; would a similar style that ISN'T a zoom, but just a 400 prime that is maybe a little faster (or even just 5.6) and lighter (@400) than the zoom version have any traction? (It wouldn't be redundant and could be made cheaper LOL!) I think compact carry size of the 75-300L and 100-400L appeals to many - why not try it on the primes? The 400 f/5.6 is a nice lens - would anyone prefer the same lens that is foldable?

 

[dufflover]

Yep that's all I meant; the "faster" bit. It won't be able to go faster than f/5.6 without that big front element.
I'm all for the retractable prime too though! Have always pondered if such a lens would ever exist but kinda gave up on that because unfortunately I reckon it won't have much traction. Like "what's wrong with the 100-400 now?". I can't really disagree with that either if they make a MkII which is up-there in sharpness like the 70-200 II increase but maintaining a similar collapsible form factor.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wonder if a retractable prime would be a hit? A 400mm lens that folds down to 7" - I can see some possibilities if also lighter and faster than the 100-400 @ 400.

My guess is that it would be a non-starter. But Canon contunies to patent now DO elements and lens designs, and one of the key advantages of that technology is that is results in physically shorter lenses for a given focal length (e.g. the 400/4 DO is shorter than the 300/2.8 and 400/5.6 lenses).