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

[Ruined]

...

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.

That is true, but the 100-400 also approaches the 70-200+2xTC in weight and size. It is also less sharp than both the 70-200L and 70-300L, while being larger and heavier than the 70-300L.

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.

You kind of just defined controversial

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.

Maybe not. Would you rather have a 70-200mm f/4L or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non-L? The latter has 100mm more reach but is not as sharp. The same could be said about the 100-400L vs 70-300L. Reach is not always better if it means sacrificing image quality.

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).

Or you could buy a 70-300L, have something of much more compact size and lesser weight than either of those two. And, when you need the 400mm reach, you crop in post. The point is instead of another monster sized lens you have something a bit more managable that is also sharper than the 100-400L.

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.

This is true, everyone has their own opinions and preference, of course

 

[Loswr]

Would you rather have a 70-200mm f/4L or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non-L? The latter has 100mm more reach but is not as sharp. The same could be said about the 100-400L vs 70-300L. Reach is not always better if it means sacrificing image quality.

Your metaphor leaves sonething to be desired. You can't really compare the IQ of the 100-400 @ 400mm with the IQ of the 70-300 non-L @ 300mm (as an analogy to the 100-400L vs the 70-300L). Well, I suppose you can, but it's a little like comparing the prowess of the 10th place NFL team with your town's peewee football league - technically possible, but not very meaningful.

 

[Ruined]

Would you rather have a 70-200mm f/4L or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non-L? The latter has 100mm more reach but is not as sharp. The same could be said about the 100-400L vs 70-300L. Reach is not always better if it means sacrificing image quality.

Your metaphor leaves sonething to be desired. You can't really compare the IQ of the 100-400 @ 400mm with the IQ of the 70-300 non-L @ 300mm (as an analogy to the 100-400L vs the 70-300L). Well, I suppose you can, but it's a little like comparing the prowess of the 10th place NFL team with your town's peewee football league - technically possible, but not very meaningful.

I used an extreme analogy just to note that reach is not everything

And it is true that the 70-300L is sharper. Yes, not as extreme difference, but it is still sharper. So perhaps if you needed to crop a little on a long shot it would not be as big of a deal...

 

[clostridium]

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.

You kind of just defined controversial

I didn't actually.

I'm assuming that most people don't have a debate with themselves about whether they like something. They either do or they don't. Controversial means you have to debate something with others. So as I said, you either like it or you don't. There should be no internal controversy about this. You rent it or try it at a store and make your decision. End of any controversy right there unless you really care what you friends think about your lenses. I personally don't.

Or you could buy a 70-300L, have something of much more compact size and lesser weight than either of those two. And, when you need the 400mm reach, you crop in post. The point is instead of another monster sized lens you have something a bit more managable that is also sharper than the 100-400L.

Cropping to get range is not a free thing to do. You lose quality when you do that. If you are only occasionally needing 400mm this may be a good compromise. If you are frequently needing 400mm it is not a good compromise. This gets back to my point that what lens you need all comes down to what you are going to use it for.

 

[Loswr]

And it is true that the 70-300L is sharper. Yes, not as extreme difference, but it is still sharper. So perhaps if you needed to crop a little on a long shot it would not be as big of a deal...

True. But as Picard said, "The line must be drawn here. This far, no further." I use the 100-400mm when the 600 is too big to bring, and if I brought it, it would probably have had the 1.4xIII on it for shooting birds. When one should be using 840mm, using 300mm and cropping isn't ideal...

OTOH, for family outings, the 70-300L is great. It's smaller, lighter, and 70mm means I don't have to be too far away, while 100mm is less convenient.

 

[Loswr]

I am in the process of making the same decision myself. 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 intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).

Ok, I've given the 70-200 II + 2xIII a shakedown for routine use, and I'm keeping the 100-400 (for now...if I'm $1K shy of the funds for the 300/2.8 II, it'll go, or if there's an updated 100-400).

The IQ is fine, there are two issues for me. The first is handling - the combo is not very convenient to carry. I normally retract the 100-400, the push-pull means racking it out is very fast, and I do that automatically as I raise the camera. The 70-200 + 2x is front-heavy, and also doesn't balance well on the BR strap, so it bounces around more. I can balance it by sliding the lens plate to the opposite end, but that defeats the anti-twist (not a big deal, it didn't twist anyway), but also means it has to be loosened and moved again to unmount the lens, else the plate hits the body.

The other issue was the AF - the combo is slower than the 100-400, noticeable when it racks out to infinity hunting...and it seemed to hunt more often. The 70-200+2x did fine in good light, but in poorer light with a complex subject (bird in tree branches) or backlit subject, it would hunt more than the 100-400, and sometimes miss focus locking at all, where the 100-400 would have often locked. Those are situations where the 100-400 has some problems, but the 70-200 + 2x was worse.

 

[DaveMiko]

I am in the process of making the same decision myself. 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 intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).

Ok, I've given the 70-200 II + 2xIII a shakedown for routine use, and I'm keeping the 100-400 (for now...if I'm $1K shy of the funds for the 300/2.8 II, it'll go, or if there's an updated 100-400).

The IQ is fine, there are two issues for me. The first is handling - the combo is not very convenient to carry. I normally retract the 100-400, the push-pull means racking it out is very fast, and I do that automatically as I raise the camera. The 70-200 + 2x is front-heavy, and also doesn't balance well on the BR strap, so it bounces around more. I can balance it by sliding the lens plate to the opposite end, but that defeats the anti-twist (not a big deal, it didn't twist anyway), but also means it has to be loosened and moved again to unmount the lens, else the plate hits the body.

The other issue was the AF - the combo is slower than the 100-400, noticeable when it racks out to infinity hunting...and it seemed to hunt more often. The 70-200+2x did fine in good light, but in poorer light with a complex subject (bird in tree branches) or backlit subject, it would hunt more than the 100-400, and sometimes miss focus locking at all, where the 100-400 would have often locked. Those are situations where the 100-400 has some problems, but the 70-200 + 2x was worse.

These are the same problems I have with my combo 70-200 f2.8 IS II+2x extender Mk III, so, just as you, I plan on keeping my 100-400 around.

 

[dufflover]

Cool good to know my experiences are experienced by others as well then! (I often read more about how it's better in every way including the AF)

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I am in the process of making the same decision myself. 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 intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).

Ok, I've given the 70-200 II + 2xIII a shakedown for routine use, and I'm keeping the 100-400 (for now...if I'm $1K shy of the funds for the 300/2.8 II, it'll go, or if there's an updated 100-400).

The IQ is fine, there are two issues for me. The first is handling - the combo is not very convenient to carry. I normally retract the 100-400, the push-pull means racking it out is very fast, and I do that automatically as I raise the camera. The 70-200 + 2x is front-heavy, and also doesn't balance well on the BR strap, so it bounces around more. I can balance it by sliding the lens plate to the opposite end, but that defeats the anti-twist (not a big deal, it didn't twist anyway), but also means it has to be loosened and moved again to unmount the lens, else the plate hits the body.

The other issue was the AF - the combo is slower than the 100-400, noticeable when it racks out to infinity hunting...and it seemed to hunt more often. The 70-200+2x did fine in good light, but in poorer light with a complex subject (bird in tree branches) or backlit subject, it would hunt more than the 100-400, and sometimes miss focus locking at all, where the 100-400 would have often locked. Those are situations where the 100-400 has some problems, but the 70-200 + 2x was worse.

I think individual lens variation might be the key point here. No two lenses are the same unfortunatly. The AF on my old 400mm f5.6 L was slightly better than with my 70-200 LIS II and a 2x mkII. But, it wasn't enough to justify owning both. So I sold the 400mm f5.6 L to fund a different lens purchase.

 

[greger]

I am beginning to think the 2X extender is a thing to be used if it means getting a pic or not. The 1.4 dose not degrade
the pic where the 2X can. I think when the 100-400 is upgraded it will sell better than vs 1 which sells quite well now.
I will probably upgrade to vs ll when it won't cost me too much to trade in my lens for the new one.

 

[Krob78]

I am in the process of making the same decision myself. 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 intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).

Ok, I've given the 70-200 II + 2xIII a shakedown for routine use, and I'm keeping the 100-400 (for now...if I'm $1K shy of the funds for the 300/2.8 II, it'll go, or if there's an updated 100-400).

The IQ is fine, there are two issues for me. The first is handling - the combo is not very convenient to carry. I normally retract the 100-400, the push-pull means racking it out is very fast, and I do that automatically as I raise the camera. The 70-200 + 2x is front-heavy, and also doesn't balance well on the BR strap, so it bounces around more. I can balance it by sliding the lens plate to the opposite end, but that defeats the anti-twist (not a big deal, it didn't twist anyway), but also means it has to be loosened and moved again to unmount the lens, else the plate hits the body.

The other issue was the AF - the combo is slower than the 100-400, noticeable when it racks out to infinity hunting...and it seemed to hunt more often. The 70-200+2x did fine in good light, but in poorer light with a complex subject (bird in tree branches) or backlit subject, it would hunt more than the 100-400, and sometimes miss focus locking at all, where the 100-400 would have often locked. Those are situations where the 100-400 has some problems, but the 70-200 + 2x was worse.

Agreed! My 100-400 is sitting quite comfortably in my bag right now with no worries other than will she be upgraded for the Ver. II? I go to it 75% more than I do my 70-200 II right now and have ever since grabbing the 5D III last year.

When I had my 7D I seemed to use my 70-200 II moreso than the 100-400. Not so much anymore! I've even thought of letting the 70-200 II go, in order to assist with funding a 300 f/2.8 or the new 500...

 

[mackguyver]

I agree with everyone on the 70-200 f2.8 II+2x Mark III. It's a great combo when you want to travel light, but not something you'd want to rely on as your standard set up. All of the 70-200s, esp. the 4 IS & 2.8 IS II, go extremely well with the 1.4x, but the 2x adds a lot of length and makes for an awkward set up.

My current wildlife set up of the 70-200 f2.8 II, 300 f2.8 II IS, and both Mk III extenders is a dream (5 years in the making) and I typically have the 1.4x on the 70-200 and the 2x on the 300 when I'm out shooting. This set up gives me so much flexibility with only two lenses:
70-200
98-280
300
140-400
420
600

The 100-400 + 1.4x gives you similar range if you're looking for small & compact, but you give up speed & quality.

 

[nc0b]

Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6. I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.

 

[WPJ]

Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6. I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.

sucking air into your camera body? Do tell how?

 

[DaveMiko]

Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6. I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.

Have you actually tested for yourself the 100-400 mounted on any DLSR or are you just conjecturing, based on hearsay "evidence"? I've used my 100-400 for more than 3 years (4 years in 2014) in all sorts of environments, dusty and less dusty, such as, deserts, mountain, wetland, wildlife reserve, savannah, steppes and never had any issues with it causing dust/dirt to accumulate on the sensors of my 5D Mark III and my ex-7D (I sold it). I also used it recently mounted on my 1DX, which I purchased before going on a safari trip in Kenya. I failed to notice any issues with dust settling on the 1DX's sensor.

 

[unfocused]

Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6. I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.

Have you actually tested for yourself the 100-400 mounted on any DLSR or are you just conjecturing, based on hearsay "evidence"? I've used my 100-400 for more than 3 years (4 years in 2014) in all sorts of environments, dusty and less dusty, such as, deserts, mountain, wetland, wildlife reserve, savannah, steppes and never had any issues with it causing dust/dirt to accumulate on the sensors of my 5D Mark III and my ex-7D (I sold it). I also used it recently mounted on my 1DX, which I purchased before going on a safari trip in Kenya. I failed to notice any issues with dust settling on the 1DX's sensor.

There have been lots of discussions about this. Consensus seems to be it's an internet myth. The push-pull design seems like it should suck air into the lens, but there is little to no evidence it is any worse than a twist zoom. It has been pointed out that no lens can form a perfect vacuum, or else it would be impossible to zoom.

sucking air into your camera body? Do tell how?

Yeah, I'm wondering about that too. Usually, people claim it sucks air into the lens. (see above)

 

[WPJ]

Until the long rumored 100-400mm finally ships, I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 1.4X & 2X version III, plus the 400mm f/5.6. I had a pump zoom in my Nikon F2 days, but with a DSLR I don't want to risk sucking that much air/dust into my camera body.

Have you actually tested for yourself the 100-400 mounted on any DLSR or are you just conjecturing, based on hearsay "evidence"? I've used my 100-400 for more than 3 years (4 years in 2014) in all sorts of environments, dusty and less dusty, such as, deserts, mountain, wetland, wildlife reserve, savannah, steppes and never had any issues with it causing dust/dirt to accumulate on the sensors of my 5D Mark III and my ex-7D (I sold it). I also used it recently mounted on my 1DX, which I purchased before going on a safari trip in Kenya. I failed to notice any issues with dust settling on the 1DX's sensor.

There have been lots of discussions about this. Consensus seems to be it's an internet myth. The push-pull design seems like it should suck air into the lens, but there is little to no evidence it is any worse than a twist zoom. It has been pointed out that no lens can form a perfect vacuum, or else it would be impossible to zoom.

sucking air into your camera body? Do tell how?

Yeah, I'm wondering about that too. Usually, people claim it sucks air into the lens. (see above)

thanks unfocused, again we have run into the internet smack which cannot be backed up by facts. One day tye internet was extremely useful now nt so much....more like a public bitch session .....hahhaha..

enjoy the night everyone..

 

[candc]

logic would say that non extending type zooms are more resistant to dust entering than pumper/extending types. although this may be true i think that in practice it is when you are changing lenses that you get dust in the camera. although air is pumped in and out like a bellows the seals seam to keep the dust out. i still like non extending types but i wouldn't worry about it too much as long as the tolerances and fit are good.

 

[canon1dxman]

I bought a 100-400 way back in 2005 and it has been on countless safaris since. Used on 2 x 1D, 7D and 1Dx. Never had an issue with dust or anything else. I did actually sell it this year when I bought the new Sigma Sport 120-300. If the mk 2 version eventually appears, I imagine ordering that but in the meantime, I might just buy another used example as it was so convenient. I have a 70-200/II plus converters but there is something nice about that old lump of a lens.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I am in the process of making the same decision myself. 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 intend to go on a few subsequent outings with the 70-200 II and 2xIII to see how the combo handles for routine use. If it's okay, I plan to sell the 100-400, with the proceeds going toward a 300/2.8 IS II (for times when my 600/4 IS II is too big to bring).

Ok, I've given the 70-200 II + 2xIII a shakedown for routine use, and I'm keeping the 100-400 (for now...if I'm $1K shy of the funds for the 300/2.8 II, it'll go, or if there's an updated 100-400).

The IQ is fine, there are two issues for me. The first is handling - the combo is not very convenient to carry. I normally retract the 100-400, the push-pull means racking it out is very fast, and I do that automatically as I raise the camera. The 70-200 + 2x is front-heavy, and also doesn't balance well on the BR strap, so it bounces around more. I can balance it by sliding the lens plate to the opposite end, but that defeats the anti-twist (not a big deal, it didn't twist anyway), but also means it has to be loosened and moved again to unmount the lens, else the plate hits the body.

The other issue was the AF - the combo is slower than the 100-400, noticeable when it racks out to infinity hunting...and it seemed to hunt more often. The 70-200+2x did fine in good light, but in poorer light with a complex subject (bird in tree branches) or backlit subject, it would hunt more than the 100-400, and sometimes miss focus locking at all, where the 100-400 would have often locked. Those are situations where the 100-400 has some problems, but the 70-200 + 2x was worse.

Agreed! My 100-400 is sitting quite comfortably in my bag right now with no worries other than will she be upgraded for the Ver. II? I go to it 75% more than I do my 70-200 II right now and have ever since grabbing the 5D III last year.

When I had my 7D I seemed to use my 70-200 II moreso than the 100-400. Not so much anymore! I've even thought of letting the 70-200 II go, in order to assist with funding a 300 f/2.8 or the new 500...

Thanks, this is interesting to me because I'm about to get a 5DMkIII to replace my 7D and say farewell to the possibility of using a crop sensor to fake 'reach'.

I'm trying to consider the repercussions this will have on my lens collection and possible future upgrade path. and it does get expensive to go beyond 400 mm on full frame and retain good image quality especially without carrying around monstrous lenses... so far it seems the 300 f/2.8 + 2x TC is a really great/best option, but I may have my eye on the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports lens if that plays well with teleconverters. Let's hope I find I can live without 400mm+