A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > 70-200 or 100-400

Featured Equipment Deals

Photographing the Aurora Borealis Read More

Photographing the Aurora Borealis

Night photographer Lance Keimig takes you on a journey to the Aurora Borealis and helps you from start to finish, beginning with preparation for cold, Icelandic weather and finishing up with exposure...

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

5 Tips for Combating Red-Eye Read More

5 Tips for Combating Red-Eye

Red-eye doesn't have to ruin your photos. Learn 5 simple tricks to avoid and eliminate this undesirable photographic effect.


70-200 or 100-400

Responses


    1   |   2   |   3   |   4     Next    Last

Hans Koot , Nov 18, 2010; 06:21 p.m.

I dont know by own experience, I have the 100-400 and i shot with the 70-200. I like them both but i never tested with the tc. Here a link that might help some to make up your mind. http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/index.php

G Dan Mitchell , Nov 18, 2010; 06:43 p.m.

Context is important, since what and how you shoot could make either choice preferable.

Dan

Jeffrey C , Nov 18, 2010; 07:36 p.m.

I would get the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II and the 2X TC III. I don't like the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS. 100-400mm is infamous for being a dust pump. Many people complain that the zoom sucks in air inside the lens onto he sensor. But with a 2X TC, you loose about 2 stops of light so the 70-200mm will become a 140-400mm 5.6.

Mark Ethridge , Nov 18, 2010; 09:17 p.m.

I love my 100-400, and I've never had any problems with dust. Considering its zoom range, it is a very sharp lens. Also considering that you'll get nearly the same range out of this lens that you would with the 70-200 with and without the TC, it's more convenient. When I'm using mine, it sure would be a hassle to dismount the lens and add a TC when I realize that I don't have enough reach.

Just my thoughts.

Nathan Gardner , Nov 18, 2010; 10:49 p.m.

the new 2x III may have a big impact on your decision. I don't think too many people care for the old one, but this MTF chart comparison looks promising for the new one. (I know its a chart put up by Canon, and its only for one lens, but it compares it to no converter and the 1.4x III.)

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_400mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Dick Arnold , Nov 18, 2010; 10:57 p.m.

I have both lenses. I use them differently. The 100-400 is a great good light lens. It is not a dust pump. I have used the same 70-200 2.8L since 1997 for sports, wildlife weddings, newspaper work and studio portraits. It is my favorite lens still and I have three other L lenses including the 100-400. There are times when I need the 2.8 I get from the 70-200. I also have a couple of extenders. There is a new Canon 2x III that is supposed to be quite good. Before I got the 100-400 I used the 70-200 with extenders to get salable wildlife pictures. If I had to choose only one it would be a 70-200 2.8 II with the new 2x. I don't know how the lenses compare at 400 since I have never used the 70-200 II or the 2x III. I do know my old 2x ain't so great. The 100-400 works very well when rapidly shifting focal lengths as I have done with sports and wildlife as Mark says above.

G Dan Mitchell , Nov 18, 2010; 11:17 p.m.

Jeffrey wrote:

I would get the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II and the 2X TC III. I don't like the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS. 100-400mm is infamous for being a dust pump. Many people complain that the zoom sucks in air inside the lens onto he sensor. But with a 2X TC, you loose about 2 stops of light so the 70-200mm will become a 140-400mm 5.6.

I wonder if you have used the 100-400 much? While there is a persistent rumor on the net that it is a "dust pump," those of use who use it really don't find that to be the case at all.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both of the suggested options, and the best choice really will vary depending upon the photographer and how the lenses will be used.

If someone really needs a f/2.8 70-200mm zoom and cannot afford to also get a 100-400mm zoom or will use the 200-400mm range only very rarely, the 70-200 plus TC could be OK. However, there are downsides, including the need to remove lens, attach TC, and reattach lens when you want to move between the two zoom ranges. And, of course, you'll also lose the aperture advantage at 400mm and the 100-400 will have a larger aperture at 201mm than the 70-200 plus TC.

The 100-400 is large and heavy - though the 70-200 is no lightweight! It will be longer fully extended than the 200mm plus TC.

I use the 100-400 to shoot a wide variety of subjects ranging from sports through birds to landscape. It is really a very fine lens.

Dan

G Dan Mitchell , Nov 18, 2010; 11:17 p.m.

Jeffrey wrote:

I would get the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II and the 2X TC III. I don't like the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS. 100-400mm is infamous for being a dust pump. Many people complain that the zoom sucks in air inside the lens onto he sensor. But with a 2X TC, you loose about 2 stops of light so the 70-200mm will become a 140-400mm 5.6.

I wonder if you have used the 100-400 much? While there is a persistent rumor on the net that it is a "dust pump," those of use who use it really don't find that to be the case at all.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both of the suggested options, and the best choice really will vary depending upon the photographer and how the lenses will be used.

If someone really needs a f/2.8 70-200mm zoom and cannot afford to also get a 100-400mm zoom or will use the 200-400mm range only very rarely, the 70-200 plus TC could be OK. However, there are downsides, including the need to remove lens, attach TC, and reattach lens when you want to move between the two zoom ranges. And, of course, you'll also lose the aperture advantage at 400mm and the 100-400 will have a larger aperture at 201mm than the 70-200 plus TC.

The 100-400 is large and heavy - though the 70-200 is no lightweight! It will be longer fully extended than the 200mm plus TC.

I use the 100-400 to shoot a wide variety of subjects ranging from sports through birds to landscape. It is really a very fine lens.

Dan

William W , Nov 19, 2010; 02:03 a.m.

Context is important, since what and how you shoot could make either choice preferable.
Dan

Agree.
I'll join the chorus of: “it depends how you are going to use the lenses”.
And I think you should make that choice, by looking at the native lens and not the lens and the adaptations to it.
So if you predominately want a fast 70 to 200 then get it, but if you more need the reach of 201 to 400 and you also want the facility of a 100mm to 400mm compass and you do not mind the varying maximum aperture, - then get the 100 to 400.
Personally, I found the 100 to 400 a little soft at about 320 to 400 when used wide open; and I don’t like varying maximum aperture; and I don’t like push pull zooms; and I wanted fast between 100 and 200 - so those are the reason I did not buy the 100 to 400.
But those reasons of mine, do not make the 100 to 400 a poor lens, but rather just not suitable for me and my uses.
My other input is that the x2.0MkII used correctly (judiciously) can give more than acceptable results on the 70 to 200F/2.8L - so I would expect that the MkIII version tele-converters and MkII version 70 to 200/2.8LIS lens would be a very acceptable combination, also.
WW


    1   |   2   |   3   |   4     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses