Canon question - 70-200 or 100-400 L usm is.... give me your opinion

[Sean Dempsey]

It is almost time to pick up an IS lens, the question is, which? I will be using a 2x teleconverter with them as well. I want them both ideally, but only can get one this summer. In my mind, I have them as my bird/animal lenses, just because I won't have any other zooms. But maybe these aren't for that.

I shoot 80% outdoors, western USA, with the occasional outdoor portrait and concert stuff. I never do studio work and don't plan on it, nor do I really use a flash (yet, til I pick up at 550ex). I really want to get some images of birds and animals, but my little Tamrom 28-300 just isn't too great.

I would like to hear peoples opinions please, especially from people who own either of the lenses.


70-200 2.8L USM IS
Good
- One of the most highly rated Canon lenses of this class
- 2.8f is really awesome
- with the 2x, can still AF on the center point
Bad
- 400mm max, not nearly enough for birds, animals
- Cost ++++++



100-400 3.5-5.6L USM IS
Good
- Same L glass
- Double the reach on the zoom
Bad
- Manual focus only with the 2x
- Push/pull zoom
- 3.5-5.6 becomes a 7-11.2 with the 2x. Is 11.2 even usable at 800mm?

[paulnj]

WELL... you need to get your F-stop data right ;) it's not simple math unfortunately

the 100-400 IS becomes a 200-800F6.7-F11 lens ;)

the push/pull zoom is not bad once you get used to it...and with nature you will be at 400mm 95%of the time!!!!!

a 2x with the 100-400 may be a bad idea(image degradation wise), why not a 1.4x

for nature the 400mm range is the beginning of the range one would want..... the 100-400 is my lens I shoot with DAILY.

with a 1D the lens tops at 520mm respectfully.... AZ birds were a great match for my setup with proper stalking technique. mind you arthur morris started out with 400f5.6 and later 800f5.6 MANUAL GEAR ... he made a TON of images with those lenses that WERE AMAZING!!!!

for wildlife.... 100-400IS(or 400f5.6L), for the rest.... 70-200IS

as for " is f11 useable at 800mm?...

my friend has shot his 600f4IS with TWO -2X tc's AT F32 and gotten AMAZING CLARITY(from a set of gitzo 410 legs w/ wimberley head ... self timer/ bean bag on the lens barrel)

[Cowgirl]

Here's my thoughts -

For wildlife, you'll be using the 400mm more. You'll need that reach. If it were me, and I'm using a 10D nowadays, I'd get the 100-400 IS with a 1.4x.


In fact, I've been looking at the 100-400 IS for some time, and its on my 'to get someday' list. The IS is nice, I really like my 28-135 IS lens.


The 70-200mm is a fine lens. Superb optics, and the F2.8 would be awesome. But I'm afraid its too short for wildlife. I would use this lens for portraits and weddings.


Kathy

[Sean Dempsey]

I also do scenics and landscapes, nature shots, sans wildlife.

I think I'd use the 70-200 more simply because in all my life living in the desert southwest, I've never seen much bigger than a chipmunk. And if I get a 100-400 with the teleconverter, I think I'd disappointed that I am using it far far less than I would be the 70-200...

I really don't know.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Sean, these lenses are not ment to substitute one another, they are for different purposes. 70-200 is much more agile, but this is not a bird lens. 100-400 has more reach and macro, but you have to move in real close to throw background out of focus as it is really slow and hence has wider DOF.
Irakly

It is almost time to pick up an IS lens, the question is, which? I will be using a 2x teleconverter with them as well. I want them both ideally, but only can get one this summer. In my mind, I have them as my bird/animal lenses, just because I won't have any other zooms. But maybe these aren't for that.

I shoot 80% outdoors, western USA, with the occasional outdoor portrait and concert stuff. I never do studio work and don't plan on it, nor do I really use a flash (yet, til I pick up at 550ex). I really want to get some images of birds and animals, but my little Tamrom 28-300 just isn't too great.

I would like to hear peoples opinions please, especially from people who own either of the lenses.


70-200 2.8L USM IS
Good
- One of the most highly rated Canon lenses of this class
- 2.8f is really awesome
- with the 2x, can still AF on the center point
Bad
- 400mm max, not nearly enough for birds, animals
- Cost ++++++



100-400 3.5-5.6L USM IS
Good
- Same L glass
- Double the reach on the zoom
Bad
- Manual focus only with the 2x
- Push/pull zoom
- 3.5-5.6 becomes a 7-11.2 with the 2x. Is 11.2 even usable at 800mm?

[Lionheart]

I had both these lenses once upon a time. I sold the 100-400 with a 1D to a fellow PR member simply because I used it infrequently (I'm just not much of a wildlife shooter-not enough woodcraft and definitely not enough patience) . The 70-200 is much more flexible for my shooting needs (people phootgraphy-as in my children and family, and studio portraits) and in a pinch would double as a wannabe 400mm @ f5.6 with 2x tele, or 560mm f8 with the 1.4 and the 2x stacked, although I don't recommend this combination. btw, i've stacked the 1.4 and the 2x on the 100-400, but the image quality really suffers. The 70-200 is also noticeably faster focusing than the 100-400, so for fast action where you don't need incredible reach, this would be the ideal lens. If birding or wild game is your thing, 100-400 is a good start (just a start) and will serve you well for a long time (if you're a crafty hunter like paulnj) before needing a longer, faster prime tele. Of course, the 100-400 will attract more babes (especially when pulled to full length ;) )-kidding of course.
Good luck on your decision.

[paulnj]

no.. attract more" WOW, ARE YOU SHOOTING FOR NAT GEO??" ..as if national geographic is the ONLY wildlife mag????

my reply is always " NO, BIRDER'S WORLD.... SOMEDAY"

I think everyuone has summed up the benefits of both QUITE WELL

my next SERIOUS lens will either be a longer prime or a 200f1.8L

BTW... a 600f4 make a great portrait lens ;)

[Sean Dempsey]

I am still trying to decide on this, I've got 1 more week.

I know the 70-200 doesn't extend to zoom, but I was wondering if anyone with the 100-400 would be willing to take a picture of it closed and extended, so I can get an idea of what it'll be like when zoomed to 400.

Thanks!

[another view]

I am still trying to decide on this, I've got 1 more week.

What happens in a week? Seriously, these are expensive pieces of equipment. They're made for different purposes and you wouldn't want to buy something that's not going to work for you. I happen to shoot Nikon, but they have similar lenses in their lineup.

One lens isn't going to solve all your problems - your first post says it will be for concerts and birds. You need totally different equipment for these scenarios. You need lens speed (and not necessarily IS) for concerts, but focal length for birds.

[Sean Dempsey]

Well, in a week I'll have the cash. And concerts and stuff are the minority, mostly I do outdoor stuff, hiking and such.

I plan on picking up both by the end of the summer, I am just wondering which I want to use over he summer. Right now, I have a 17-40L, a 105 macro, and a 28-300 tamron zoom. The zoom lens is pretty inadequate, at 300mm it's a joke. So since I have a long summer of the western USA ahead of me, I want a zoom that will be useful and effective.

70-200 is a faster lens, and would have much more "walk around" capacity. 100-400 is a bit slower, but has the extra reach. The mountains of Utah and the other western states are teeming with wildlife... animals I want to capture.

I suppose my revised question is, which lens sounds like it would be a summer national park, outdoor adventure lens? the 70-200 will be great for everything, until I find some animals, then I won't have much zoom capacity. This weekend in Brian Head ski resort, I had the 300mm, and it was decent, but the images all sucked because the lens just isn't very high quality.

[Trevor Ash]

I'm not going to get too detailed here because I don't need to. For me, I'll never buy another push/pull lens again. I used to own the 100-400. It was a good lens. But I sold it SOLELY because I don't like push/pull. I hadn't owned a push/pull prior to that.

Personally, I'm after the 300mm with 1.4x. Have you considerd that instead or do you need the zoom ability?

[Sean Dempsey]

Mainly I want to replace the 28-300 Tamron. It's just a cheap lens, and shots at 200-300 just aren't sharp or clear. Even on a tripod with mirror lock on and using a remote cable, they aren't "crisp".

So I'd like the zoom because if I did a 300 prime, I'd have 300, 105, then 17-40, and that's a little too much gap for me.

If you could humor me, can you tell me why you didn't like the push/pull zoom? I'd be very interested in considering that.

[paulnj]

PLAIN AND SIMPLE......

get the 70-200IS and a 1.4 or 2x CANON TC......

that is the best setup for wildlife, nature and to add to your landscape focal lengths too

then concerts and portrait type stufff is semi covered too. BYE A SWEET SHARP FAST L lens

IF you were exclusively shooting wildlife.... 100-400IS , 300f4 is w/1.4, OR the ULTRA SHARP 400F5.6L( then 500f4/600f4)

[Sebastian]

Sean,

You shouldn't be nearly as concerned with focal length coverage as much as you should with learning focal lengths and what they do. Most of the experienced shooters here will have large gaps in focal lengths, because years of shooting has taught them that those are the lenses they use and that covering every range is a waste of time for many reasons.

Get the 70-200, any flavor.

[Lionheart]

You don't really need as much coverage of the focal length range as you might think. I have a fairly good range of lenses, both prime and zoom, but I use the 20mm f2.8, 50mm f2.5 macro, and 70-200 for about 90% of my shots. My 50f1.4, 85f1.8, 28-70 f2.8L, 100 f2.8 macro,135 f2, and my 1.4x and 2x TC "collect dust" in my gadget bag most of the time. For most outings I pack the 70-200, the 20 and the 50 macro. The one thing I noticed about carrying fewer lenses with gaps in the focal length range is that I can be more decisive in choosing the lens I need. Just my $0.02

[lukechip]

I am considering getting the 70-200 2.8 L (IS), with either a 1.4x or 2x teleconveter. These will be used primarily a 300D body, but also sometimes with an Elan II. Mostly the lens will be used for family portraits, scenery and sports, but sometimes I like to photograph animals - hence the TC.

Can anyone comment on how much greater the image degradation is with the 2x versus the 1.4x ? I realize that with the 1.6 multiplier I get with the 300 D body, I'll get:

200 * 1.6 * 1.4 = 450 mm with the 1.4x, and

200 * 1.6 * 2 = 640 mm with the 2x.

Natively, I'll get 200 * 1.6 = 320 mm with the lens on the 300D. Both teleconverters will extend me to 450 mm, but only the 2x will take me to 640 mm. Given that I do like photographing animals, is this extra 190mm zoom worth the degradation in image quality I'll get between 320mm and 450 mm. All of my photography is for personal use - not professional or for sale / exhibition. Of course image quality is still important, but it's not a matter of my losing income by having a photo rejected..

[Sebastian]

I am considering getting the 70-200 2.8 L (IS), with either a 1.4x or 2x teleconveter. These will be used primarily a 300D body, but also sometimes with an Elan II. Mostly the lens will be used for family portraits, scenery and sports, but sometimes I like to photograph animals - hence the TC.

Can anyone comment on how much greater the image degradation is with the 2x versus the 1.4x ? I realize that with the 1.6 multiplier I get with the 300 D body, I'll get:

200 * 1.6 * 1.4 = 450 mm with the 1.4x, and

200 * 1.6 * 2 = 640 mm with the 2x.

Natively, I'll get 200 * 1.6 = 320 mm with the lens on the 300D. Both teleconverters will extend me to 450 mm, but only the 2x will take me to 640 mm. Given that I do like photographing animals, is this extra 190mm zoom worth the degradation in image quality I'll get between 320mm and 450 mm. All of my photography is for personal use - not professional or for sale / exhibition. Of course image quality is still important, but it's not a matter of my losing income by having a photo rejected..

For your pruposes, I think you'd be happy with the 2x. Canon TCs are reasonably priced, so I would suggest that over the third=party alternatives. I still think a 1.4x should be included, if budget allows, for added flexibility.