Thoughts on 70-200 f/4 vs 70-300 vs 100-400?

[tomscott]

You know exactly what I mean Neuro, stop being arsy in every post.

I may not have put changes field of view but I would expect most to know. Same with the DoF, your authoritative sarcastic posts are getting boring and doesn't make the forum a better place.

 

[Aichbus]

I owned the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 100-400. I sold both and got the 70-300 L. Sometimes I look back at the 100-400, but never at the 70-200/4. Regarding image quality among the three: In real world they are all just as good (without extenders). The 70-200 was very very good with extender 1.4x, but having to put on a converter everytime you need more reach is very annoying. That's the big, big plus of the 70-300L. With the 100-400 I missed the 70-100 part more than I needed the 300-400 part, that's why I switched. Also, the compactness of the 70-300 L is a real plus. I wouldn't consider using it with an extender (Kenko for instance) though.

In contradiction in what was said, the 100-400 should be better at 400 mm than any of the other lenses with converters. If you find it's not you have a bad copy.

And one thing that almost never gets mentioned is distortion. The highly praised 70-200 f/4 has an awful amount of distortion at 200 mm, the 70-300 L also at 300 mm. In this area, the 100-400 is clearly better. Don't tell me you can correct that in post. You can, but then you lose sharpness, so distortion is something that has to be considered if you're photographing architecture.

As a side note: I also own the 200 mm f/2.8 L II. The bare lens has a bit of pincushion distortion, but with the extenders 1.4III and 2III the distortion is reduced to next to nothing (because of the slight barrel distortion of the extenders). Image quality is also amazing. But it has no IS and cannot zoom, that's why I mostly prefer my 70-300 L for its ease of use.

 

[jd7]

As to the weight, when many of your lenses are large aperture you get used to it and the mid range aperture lenses feel very light.

Like having a 24-105mm on the 5DMKIII feels a lot lighter than the 24-70MKI but you get used to it, so for a zoom of that magnitude 1050g isn't a lot. Compare that to the 70-200mm MKII which is 1490g add a 2x converter 325g and a mid body 860g = 2675g compared to mid range body and 70-300mm = 1935g. That weight saving is the same as taking a 70-200mm F4 IS also. So you could take another high end piece of glass to fill another gap like a wide angle.

I get the general point but I'm not sure "you get used to it" is really the issue. As with just about everything to do with camera gear, it's about each person working out what set of trade offs suits them best for what they want to do. Looked at in isolation, I agree 300g is not much at all ... but you can say the same about the 740g difference in the above example - it's really not that much. On the other hand, if you're carrying something far enough and trying to move fast enough, etc, you'll want to shave 300g off every item you can. In my case I'm sometimes (sadly not often - too much time doing a desk job) travelling with people who aren't so interested in photography so aren't going to cut me any slack, and we're covering quite a lot of rough terrain. I've done it with a 7D, a 70-200 2.8, a (Sigma) 24-70 2.8, a wide angle zoom and other bits and pieces and lived to tell the tale, but the weight made it all a bit less enjoyable. (And I'm someone who spends my weekends doing things like running up hills with a 20kg+ pack on my back and pushing heavy sleds in the name of fitness.)

A couple of years ago I looked hard at moving to m4/3, but in the end decided to go the other way to full frame. But I chose a 6D rather than a 5DIII, and apart from my 70-200 2.8 all my other lenses now are at the light end for lenses in their class. Saving a bit of weight on each of a number of items adds up in a way which matters to me - and means I enjoy using the gear I have. The OP may or may not have reasons (not necessarily the same as mine!) for valuing a weight reduction even if it's only 300g.

Anyway, my only real point is that there are a lot of factors which play into what's the "best choice" for someone. I completely understand why some people prefer the 70-300L - the extra reach being the most likely reason, but for some even just being able to carry the lens vertically in a bag might make it worth it. But there is nothing wrong with choosing the 70-200 4 IS either. And there is nothing wrong with deciding 300g extra is not something you want, even if it's something you could get used to.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You know exactly what I mean Neuro, stop being arsy in every post.

I may not have put changes field of view but I would expect most to know. Same with the DoF, your authoritative sarcastic posts are getting boring and doesn't make the forum a better place.

Unfortunately, many people do believe that crop sensors give 'more reach and more DoF for free.' Misinformation does not make the forum a better place. If you know statements like, "...you get an <extra> 120mm for free," and, "...if you want to get plenty of DOF crop cameras work to your advantage," are blatantly incorrect, then you shouldn't post them.

 

[Cory]

I think that, all things considered, the 70-300 might be the winner and then maybe, in the name of GAS, a 400mm prime for the next Alaskan trip (which won't be for awhile).
Thanks for all the insight and more is very welcome.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I find the 70-300L to be an excellent travel zoom. It's the shortest of the bunch, so it fits 'vertically' in most camera bags (the 70-200/4 IS is lighter, but taller).

+1 shall we keep repeating how great it is for travel, just like in the other thread?

On another lens, I was a little surprised by my 100-400 this weekend; normally my results from the race track are only so-so IMHO, but after spending more time with the AF tracking settings of my 5DMkIII I've suddenly made a leap in image quality with this lens. Attached is a quick & dirty crop to give an idea of what's possible.

 

[chas1113]

Just tried a new superzoom on a vacation last week to a lot of "blah". Rented a 100-400 last Summer which was AWESOME.
I have a 70D with indoor sports telephoto needs met with a 100 2.0 and 200 2.8II.
So I'm looking for that one special telephoto zoom for outdoor sports/activities, travel, etc. and am slightly leaning towards the 70-300L. 400mm would be useful at times, but 70-100 might be attractive and the rest up to 300 probably good-to-go 95+% of the time.
70-200 is likely enough most of the time so I'm willing to make a "focal-length" sacrifice for the most image quality possible.
Is there one of the above that really shines above the rest in image quality? Of course, there's the upcoming 100-400 which is somewhat of an unknown and the 70-200 4.0 non-IS maybe the bargain of the bunch.
Thanks for any direction even though this has been discussed a lot. The latest thoughts can't hurt, though, I guess.
Much appreciated.

I replaced a 70-200 f/4 IS with the 70-300L because the IQ between the two was basically a draw. I did extensive side-by-side testing with a 1.4 TC and the results were as follows:

1) at 70mm, the 70-300L was punchier, sharper and focussed closer
2) at 100mm, the two lenses were basically identical
3) at 135mm, the 70-200 was slightly sharper in the center but the edges were virtually identical in sharpness
4) at 200mm, the 70-300L was marginally sharper both center and edge
5) at 300mm, the 70-300L was much sharper than the 70-200 f/4 IS with TC
In addition at 200mm at MFD, the 70-200mm f/4 suffered while the 70-300L was much better.

Overall, I preferred the contrast, color and clarity of the 70-300L images more, so I got rid of the 70-200 f/4 IS.

But, I doubt if anyone could honestly tell the difference between the two unless testing side by side, they are that close. They are both exceptional lenses. I have never shot with the 100-400.

By the time you put the TC on the 70-200mm, it starts to be a little unwieldy in terms of length. The weight of the 70-300L is closer to the body and doesn't actually feel THAT much heavier. It handles well. As others have stated, it fits and packs well in a sling bag. The focus and zoom barrels on the 70-300L are reversed (in terms of location) compared to most other Canon zooms. This is annoying until you get used to it.

Hope this helps.

 

[mrsfotografie]

But, I doubt if anyone could honestly tell the difference between the two unless testing side by side, they are that close. They are both exceptional lenses. I have never shot with the 100-400.

From my experience, the 70-300L is better than the 100-400L in color, sharpness and contrast. While still a good lens, I (like many others) hope the 100-400 will be upgraded to the type of quality we've become used to (70-200 f/2.8 IS II, 70-300L). It's amazing how close the 70-300L comes to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, something I had never expected or even dreamed of until I started using it.

 

[chas1113]

It's amazing how close the 70-300L comes to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, something I had never expected or even dreamed of until I started using it.

I remember getting flamed for questioning just how much better the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II could be after shooting with the 70-300L. Glad to see my suspicions confirmed.

 

[sdsr]

If you're in bright outdoors light and don't need the shallower focus allowed by 2.8, the 70-300L would make sense; the differences in image quality among the 70-200 f4 IS & 2.8 II and 70-300L are otherwise trivial in such conditions. If you want shallower focus and/or to minimalize noise - always a consideration with APSC - as you need to boost ISOs either to freeze action or deal with lower light (or both), you may prefer the 2.8 if you don't mind the weight (I own a f4 IS, but have hardly ever used it since buying a 70-300L; I find the 2.8 II far too heavy to lug around and thus have only rented it rather than buying it).

As for vacations, it rather depends on your stamina etc. If you'll be carrying around a camera + lenses all day, you may find that after a few hours any of these is a bit much; presumably that's why you tried the superzoom you were disappointed by. As you likely know, there are now relatively lightweight options that produce very good results and weigh a lot less, including recent superzooms that don't have tiny sensors, such as the Sony RX10, as well as various micro 43 options (a bag containing a m43 body + several lenses seems weightless next to a similar amount of dslr gear). I don't know what superzoom you had, but chances are it was hampered by a tiny sensor and perhaps inferior lens, which isn't the case with these. Or you could consider a superzoom lens for your 70D, such as the cheap but surprisingly good (well, it surprised me...) Sigma 18-250 OS macro. Only you know whether the minor (perhaps trivial) loss in image quality from these options is compensated for by the resulting increase in enjoying other aspects of your vacation....

 

[mrsfotografie]

It's amazing how close the 70-300L comes to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, something I had never expected or even dreamed of until I started using it.

I remember getting flamed for questioning just how much better the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II could be after shooting with the 70-300L. Glad to see my suspicions confirmed.

The comparison holds true, however that's at comparative apertures. Obviously the 70-200 has its advantages in a certain focal length range In any case there's reason enough for me to own both of these lenses (and a 100-400L).

 

[MJ]

...

Summary

1- 70-300mm L
2 - 70-300mm DO
3 - 70-200mm F2.8 + 2x
4 - 70-200mm F4
5 - 100-400mm

Hey TomScott,
Not sure if you are already on your 6 month trip or not, but I thought to suggest you the Canon 200mm f2.8L II. It won't zoom like the 70-...'s but it's small, lighter and pretty good.

For traveling you DON'T NEED TO cover every millimeter IMHO.

Cheers

PS I like the automotive gallery of your website!