70-200mm f/2.8 IS or 100-400mm f/4.5 IS???

08/12/2005 09:17:15 AM · #1

I am looking into a long lens for wildlife, don't have the money yet but still was wondering which is the better buy sooo...

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens

or

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM???

08/12/2005 09:21:13 AM · #2

If you are looking to go longer than 200mm I would recommend the 100-400mm, or maybe even better for the money - the 400mm F/5.6L, which is sharper and lighter. But no IS. And not flexible; you are stuck at 400mm. Just some food for thought. If you find you are always shooting at the long end it's hard to beat for the money.

The 70/200 F/2.8L IS is of course a killer lens, just kind of short for wildlife photography. From most reports I have heard, slapping a 2x converter on this lens makes it quite a bit softer than either the 100-400 or the 400 prime, but that is still secondhand reporting. Other opinions may vary.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/12/2005 09:24:42 AM · #3

Originally posted by rich:

thanks i will look into the 400mm prime...

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/12/2005 09:25:29 AM · #4

Get the 100-400 like Rich said. 200mm just isn't long enough for wildlife, and I'm constantly using my 1.4x TC to get closer.

08/12/2005 09:28:02 AM · #5

Originally posted by scalvert:

Get the 100-400 like Rich said. 200mm just isn't long enough for wildlife, and I'm constantly using my 1.4x TC to get closer.

does the 100-400mm work with the Canon EF 1.4x II Extender?

08/12/2005 09:33:16 AM · #6

It does, but in manual focus only on your camera.

Edit: And mine too. But it should AF on better cameras like a 1D Mk2 that can AF at F/8.

Message edited by author 2005-08-12 09:33:56.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

08/12/2005 09:35:32 AM · #7

or the 300mm f4L IS and 1.4x extender ... same price and the 300 have very good close up range

08/12/2005 09:37:40 AM · #8

Originally posted by hopper:

or the 300mm f4L IS and 1.4x extender ... same price and the 300 have very good close up range

And it has IS.

08/12/2005 09:38:20 AM · #9

Originally posted by rich:

But it should AF on better cameras like a 1D Mk2 that can AF at F/8.

Only with centre point on the 1D. Not sure about mkII.

08/12/2005 09:43:58 AM · #10

right now I have the tamron 70-300mm and it has been a great lens for the price.. but now that I bought the 17-40mm and the canon 50mm im noticing that its not a very sharp lens...Is the 100-400mm pretty sharp?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/12/2005 09:48:51 AM · #11

The 100-400 gets somewhat soft above 300mm I believe.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/12/2005 09:52:16 AM · #12

HERE'S a good comparison of lenses in your range.

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/12/2005 10:10:47 AM · #13

This is like comparing apples and oranges... The price differential should tell you right away!

First, The 70-200 2.8 IS USM is probably the best zoom lens ever made, regardless of the brand, that's why it's reffered to as the "Prime of Zooms"..so many reasons to love this lens.

The 100-400, is a very mice lens but not in the same ballpark as the 70-200. a lens with a focal range larger than 3.0 will often be soft throught it's range, this lens with a 4.0 range is known to be fairly soft. (divide the big number by the smallnumber to get the range, the closer to 1 you are the sharper the lens).

It's a Push-Pull, which means that the center of mass changes...and that sucks on a tripod...and last but not least...and Variable aperture really really really sucks hard. BUT this does not mean you won't love it... It's just not comparable to a 70-200 2.8 IS

Message edited by author 2005-08-12 10:12:51.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/12/2005 10:28:31 AM · #14

Gil P,
I'm confused by your post. Don't you already have the 70-200 f2.8L IS?
Here is a review of the dust pumper. I'd prefer the bigma over it.
//www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm
//www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_50500_463/index.htm

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

08/12/2005 10:33:17 AM · #15

I'm sorry Yido, what did I say that confused you? and Yes I do have a 70-200L 2.8 ISv2 USM, did I say I did not??

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/12/2005 10:33:42 AM · #16

Originally posted by yido:

I'd prefer the bigma over it.

10x zoom? I wouldn't say it's conducive of quality. :-)

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

08/12/2005 10:35:17 AM · #17

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by yido:
I'd prefer the bigma over it.

10x zoom? I wouldn't say it's conducive of quality. :-)

jeeez, no need for a soft focus filter on that one!

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

08/12/2005 10:47:17 AM · #18

If you look at the MTF charts for the dust pumper and the Bigma on the link, the dust pumper is a bit sharper at 400mm but at 500mm Bigma matches the MTF number of the dust pumper at 400. So if the Bigma is soft, then so is the dust pumper. Plus if you try to crop a 400mm image to be comparable to a 500mm image, I think that would further degrade the image quality as well.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

08/12/2005 10:51:57 AM · #19

Originally posted by yido:

Zed Pobre

Canon EOS-20D

08/12/2005 11:55:06 AM · #20

You might want to look at the Sigma 80-400 OS. It's also stabilized, has a ring zoom, and has been tested as being very slightly sharper than the Canon 100-400, albeit a tad heavier. You also get an extra 20mm on one end, which can be helpful. It doesn't have quite the reach of the 50-500, but you can use it handheld.

This is very likely to be my next lens purchase, as well.

The downside: make sure you buy from a place that allows for easy returns, and thoroughly test your lens once you get it. Sigma is infamous for their lack of quality control.

08/12/2005 12:14:24 PM · #21

Originally posted by Gil P:

I would not try to compare the 70-200 to the 100-400 at equivalent focal lengths, but I kind of doubt that the 70-200 is as sharp as the 100-400 when you put a 2x converter on it and shoot both at 400mm.

//www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml is a good comparison of those two that seems to bear that out as well.

I don't really consider myself a 'biased' owner of a 100-400, I am well aware of it's drawbacks and some days wish I had the 400mm prime instead for it's sharpness and light weight. But most days I like having the flexibility of its zoom range and it is pretty good at getting the job done. I have often wished for a 70-200 F/2.8, but never in the context of getting out to 400mm with it.

08/12/2005 12:23:31 PM · #22

Originally posted by hopper:

hand helds at 400mm with IS is do-able, handhelds at 300 to 500 without IS is not.

Also, $1000 is a lot of money for a 3rd party lens. I know people do it all the time, but there is always a chance that Canon could release a body which would yield a error 99 with that lens. It's a potential risk ... perhaps not a huge risk.

Originally posted by yido:
If you look at the MTF charts for the dust pumper and the Bigma on the link, the dust pumper is a bit sharper at 400mm but at 500mm Bigma matches the MTF number of the dust pumper at 400. So if the Bigma is soft, then so is the dust pumper. Plus if you try to crop a 400mm image to be comparable to a 500mm image, I think that would further degrade the image quality as well.

There are photographers that would disagree with you there - one that especially comes to mind is Art Morris, a well known bird photographer, who gives a fairly rave review of the 400mm F/5.6L as a handheld lens.

I think handholding a 400mm without IS has a lot more to do with the type of photography you are doing and of course how much available light you have. Panning shots of birds in flight on a relatively bright day for example would seem to suit the 400mm F/5.6L well.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

08/12/2005 12:32:06 PM · #23

The 100-400L is a good lens, but please consider the slightly cheaper ($1000) Sigma 80-400 os (os is the sigma version of IS). Also you might consider the Bigma (sigma 50-500 6.3) which is cheaper yet, but not as sharp.

On the primes side you have, as mentioned the 400L 5.6 which is supposed to be very good and can be found for about $900 used. You can also find the sharper 300L F4 (non IS) for $900 at (I think it was) adorama used. It may be possible to find it cheaper from an individual. Adding a 1.4x tc will give you a 420mmL 5.6. This can also be done with the setup I am saving for, the 300L F4 IS, which is a little more expensive and less sharp. However it can focus closer than the non-IS version and has IS. There you have with 1.4x tc a 420mm (actually 410mm) F5.6 IS lens, which appeals greatly to me.

PS, I didn't see mention of it, but there is a 2x teleconverter, which I've seen tests done that show you can provide almost the same image quality by interpolating as by using the 2x tc. The 2x tc becomes better with lower MP cameras but becomes more and more useless with higher ones. The 1.4x with interpolation is pretty much just as good as the 2x with no resizing.

Hope that helps.

PPS: yes the 70-200L IS is better than the zooms in the 100-400 range but it has not enough reach imo. I always find myself at 200mm craving something longer. The 70-200L IS is not quite as sharp as the 70-200L non IS... I doubt you'd be dissapointed with the IS version however.

Message edited by author 2005-08-12 12:35:47.

08/12/2005 01:11:32 PM · #24

Originally posted by Gil P:

I'm sorry Yido, what did I say that confused you? and Yes I do have a 70-200L 2.8 ISv2 USM, did I say I did not??

Gil P,
For some reason, your post was the first one up when I checked this thread and I thought you were asking the question. :) That's why I was confused as to why you would ask about the 70-200 when you had one already.