70-200L f/4 or 100-400L f/4.5-5.6?

03/06/2006 03:12:29 PM · #1

Hi everybody,

I currently own the canon 70-200 f/4, but i have been thinking i want a little more reach (i already considered the 1.4x teleconverter, but i didnt like the pics taken with it). What do you guys think of me selling the 70-200 and buying the 100-400.

i would like to stick with L-glass, and im not concerned with the push-pull feature at all, are there any negatives to this lens, i have done some googling and everyone seems to love it.

Any answers are welcome :)
thanks
-Dan

Message edited by author 2006-03-06 15:13:05.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

03/06/2006 03:21:05 PM · #2

Originally posted by I Enjoy Ham:

The 1.4x on the 70-200mm f/2.8 would be absolutely stellar. Trouble is, you loose too much light with the f/4 version. The EF 100-400mm is a great lens for many applications, including wildlife photography, but to sacrifice one for the other would not be my choice at all.

There's no way I'd give up the 70-200mm, even a f/4 version.

Message edited by author 2006-03-06 15:21:34.

03/06/2006 03:24:26 PM · #3

yeah, but to buy a 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4x converter would be more money then im willing to spend.....

dont get me wrong, i love the 70-200, but when im at football games and outdoors at nature preserves an such, i really feel like i need the extra length.
-dan

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

03/06/2006 03:25:22 PM · #4

With the 100-400, you get more reach at the same aperture value (as the f/4 and TC), plus you get image stabilisation. I hear that the focussing is slightly slower than the 70-200, but it's not exactly snail's pace.

I found that I could not tell the difference in quality between shots taken using the teleconverter and shots without with my 70-200 f/4. The lens is just so sharp. ]I know it's small, but this is a sample of the f/4 with a 1.4 TC.

I have also heard that the f/4 version is as sharp at f/4 as the f/2.8 lens is. I cannot verify that, as I am just too lazy to take test images to compare. I only take test images to make sure that the glass in the lens is at least transparent.

Message edited by author 2006-03-06 15:37:24.

03/06/2006 03:29:56 PM · #5

be that as it may with the teleconverter the lens only turns out to be a 98- 280, thats not very much of a difference.
-dan

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/06/2006 03:33:10 PM · #6

I own and love both lenses. I've never had a problem using a 1.4X TC on the 70-200 (even handheld), and I can't see much difference in image quality. The 70-200 has been my workhorse zoom for 2 years. Even with the TC, though, I sometimes wished for more reach. That's certainly not the case with the 100-400, and I find myself zooming back out quite a bit. The IS works well, but the lens is so massive that a monopod is almost mandatory anyway.

The 100-400 will likely end up being my lens of choice for wildlife, and if the 70-200 sits in my bag through the summer I'll probably eBay it.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

03/06/2006 03:37:48 PM · #7

The general consensus, I think, is this: the 100-400mm is great glass, the 70-200mm is better glass. Whether or not you value the distinction, depends on the kind of shooting you do. If reach is everything, well, 400 is longer than 200.

I would still like to discourage you from financing one lens with the other. The 70-200mm, IMO, belongs into everyone's bag. I just realized your age and now better understand your conundrum, but could you not wait for a birthday or strike some sort of sensible deal with your parents, like straight A's for a year in return for a lens?

On the other hand, I think you're incredible fortunate to own the kind of equipment you already have...

Message edited by author 2006-03-06 15:41:26.

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

03/06/2006 03:41:59 PM · #8

already striking a deal with the parents, all grades above a 90 and i get the sigma 105mm macro :)

my birthday doesnt come for another 8 months and i'd elike to have the lens for the spring.

It seems like there isnt really a big dropoff in quality though, considering they are both L series lenses.
-dan

p3wiz

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/06/2006 03:48:44 PM · #9

I've got the 100-400 and I'm very happy with it. I was able to get mine used from a camera store for about 65% of a new lens.

Did you take a look at the 400mm F5.6? I don't know how good the glass is, but the price is not much more than the difference between the 100-400 and the 70-200 F4. You would miss out on the IS, but you are still young and have steady hands.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

03/06/2006 03:51:23 PM · #10

Originally posted by I Enjoy Ham:

No, no big drop-off.

I have used both lenses for different kinds of situations and pictures. The IS will introduce a certain level of complexity (and sensitivity) to a lens. I would not hurt, I imagine, to make you aware of this. A friend (ellamay) has had to go through numerous repairs and three lens replacements before she was happy with the last version of her 100-400mm (for a few months now).

03/06/2006 03:52:44 PM · #11

i know prime lenses are sharper then zoom lenses (my 85mm is the sharpest lens i own) but i gnenerally like to have zoom lenses, mainly because if im standing in the park or at a football game or in anyplace where you dont have much manuverability (unless you disturb the crowd/animals/annoying people) its usefull to have the zoom...

-Dan

dswebb

Canon EOS-20D

03/06/2006 03:57:57 PM · #12

100-400mm, I love mine. What more can I say...

Doug

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/06/2006 04:09:45 PM · #13

bumpizzle for shizzle.....

-dan

Prof_Fate

03/06/2006 05:30:40 PM · #14

What do you use the 70-200 for now? Foot ball you say. Day games i guess'll be OK, but the 100-400 is much slower, a full stop. that makes a difference in focus speed, brightness of hte viewfinder, DOF.

Must it be L glass, and why?

sigma's 50-500 is nice, and some tamron (200-500?) is highly regarded as well.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

03/06/2006 05:39:49 PM · #15

Originally posted by I Enjoy Ham:

If you want a Sigma 105 Macro, I have one for sale

Sigma 105 f2.8 Macro on ebay