70-200/fIS or 100-400mm? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/28/2007 11:15:49 PM · #1

im torn between the 2 lenses. the 100-400 will give me more reach but im losing 70-100mm. is that significant? and also how is the IQ difference between the 2 lenses?

and also should i spend 500 bucks on a new monitor that can actually show true colours(my monitor right now is darker on the top of hte screen and gradients lighter to the bottem. or save up for either the70-200mm or 100-400mm? which would you say is more important?

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

03/28/2007 11:19:36 PM · #2

what is the f-value of the 70-200 IS you're considering?

I'd go for the monitor seeing you already own one really nice lens to keep you keen...

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 23:20:55.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/28/2007 11:23:10 PM · #3

For me I would say monitor then 100-400. You'll use the monitor no matter what lens you choose. The lens though really depends on what you want to photograph. I tend to be further away so I like more reach. You take a lot of portraits so the 70-200 may be more appropriate.

03/29/2007 12:41:02 AM · #4

Originally posted by zeuszen:

what is the f-value of the 70-200 IS you're considering?

I'd go for the monitor seeing you already own one really nice lens to keep you keen...

OOPS! i forget the f stop! id be getting the f/4 IS

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/29/2007 12:42:28 AM · #5

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

would it be harder to use the 100-400 for portraits? ive decided im definitly getting hte monitor first.
itdb e nice to have the extra reach with the 100-400. but would it stil be good for portraits at all?

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

03/29/2007 01:23:52 AM · #6

Originally posted by noisemaker:

You could certainly use the lens for portraits. Typically though a portrait lens is between 85mm and 150mm in 35mm. The 100-400mm on a 20D is the equivalent of 160-640mm so it's a bit long. You'll be further away from your model then you would with the other lens.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/29/2007 01:39:56 AM · #7

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by noisemaker:
would it be harder to use the 100-400 for portraits? ive decided im definitly getting hte monitor first.
itdb e nice to have the extra reach with the 100-400. but would it stil be good for portraits at all?

You could certainly use the lens for portraits. Typically though a portrait lens is between 85mm and 150mm in 35mm. The 100-400mm on a 20D is the equivalent of 160-640mm so it's a bit long. You'll be further away from your model then you would with the other lens.

hmmm, its a tough choice. ive always wanted a good quality telephoto lens. i have my 24-70 which is great for portraits ive found. im kind of leading towards the 100-400mm for now. i can pick the 70-200 when time comes. is the price around teh same for hte 2 lenses?

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

03/29/2007 01:49:28 AM · #8

Originally posted by noisemaker:

The 100-400 is about $400 more than the 70-200 f4 IS and $300 less than the 70-200 f2.8 IS.

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

03/29/2007 02:25:09 AM · #9

The 2.8 IS is an almost perfect lens for sports, but it's more weight than you need to carry for shooting other things, and not quite long enough by itself for most wildlife stuff. You can use it with a 2x TC to get 400mm at 5.6 like the 100-400, but the image quality is probably going to be about the same. If you need it primarily for the long end, I would go with the 400mm 5.6L prime for the size and weight benefit and it should be sharper also.

I know a guy who shoots almost all wildlife, and he usually uses TC's on both the 100-400 and his 500 prime for the extra reach. But he has a 1DS, so you'll have more of a crop factor.

You've got the portrait *focal lengths* covered with the 24-70, but if you're looking for a little extra optical quality you might think about a manual focus prime lens in the 80 or 90 range. Canon EOS is a pretty versatile mount, you can get adapters for most lenses. For instance, the Jupiter 9 is an older russian lens, 85mm f/2, and it was made in the m42 mount which you can easily use with your Canon with an adapter. You can get one of those and an adapter for around $100. Or you can delve into Leica R or Contax (Zeiss) glass... There's more to lenses than just focal lengths and apertures, and prime lenses have a different character than zooms.

You can't really go wrong with the 85mm 1.8 prime from Canon, but once you've 'tasted' good manual focus glass you'll never feel the same way about your plastic Canon autofocus stuff again.

03/29/2007 02:31:44 AM · #10

Originally posted by MadMan2k:

Im not going to get into primes. il lhave the few odd ones like im going ot pick up the 85/1.8, but thats probably it.well and a macro prime as well soon enough. and id never buy the 2.8 IS lens! too much money for me. for me to buy the 100-400 which i think i might go for i need to work for at least 2 months straight and eat cheap tv dinners for hte whole time to afford that lens.
id rahter stick to auto focus and to what i know. I like L series so i'm going to stick with it :P so do you think id be better off wit hteh 70-200mm/4IS or hte 100-400mm(you never gave an answer)

dainmcgowan

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/29/2007 07:48:53 AM · #11

dustin

i was thinking about the same 2 lenses you are talking about.

but then i found the sigma 135-400mm f4 for about half the price of the canon 100-400 f4.
this works well on the 20d.
i have also used this lens in combination with a kenco 2x converter.

another one for you to consider.

Message edited by author 2007-03-29 07:49:43.