100-400 OR 70-200

futureal33

futureal33

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,390
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning all,

Having recently purchased a 70-200 F4 L IS, I am wondering if I need a little bit more range.
A recent zoo visit was the start to my thoughts on this, as Ive found myself cropping nearly all my photos, some quite severely (down from 5000 pixels to 1000 pixels) to get the picture I wanted.

So, with that in mind, would I be better off getting a 100-400 IS and selling my 70-200?

I already have a 135L for portraits, so the 70-200 would become redundant if I got a 100-400 I feel.

There must have been other people in this situation, where 70-200 on full frame isnt quite long enough.

Any suggestions on a way forward?

Ps - i should add, I cant afford to keep both! The money from the 70-200 F4 IS would go towards the 100-400L.
 
Last edited:
I used a 100-400L for ages and it's a cracking lens - I sometimes regret getting rid of it. It's pretty much the perfect lens for a zoo visit as the zoom range enables you tackle everything from the close up stuff to the more distant stuff. I've done a zoo visit with the 70-200 2.8 and it's range is very lacking at times in that situation, and that's on a crop sensor.
 
My other options are a prime lens (300mm F4L IS / 400mm F5.6L) but the IQ between them and the 100-400 seems negligable, and obviously the zoom is massively more practical for an everyday zoom (which, if it replaced the 70-200, it would become)

I would also probably get a 1.4x teleconverter for my 135L F2, so that I had the 200mm range covered by a 2.8 lens...
 
I tackled Bristol Zoo armed with a 70-200mm F2.8, 300mm F4L and a 1.4x TC.

And for the whole day I used a mixture of 300mm and the 300+1.4 never even took the 70-200 out of the zoo.

So you'd probes be best off with that set up.

And I havnt said that because I'm selling a 300mm F4L either, but you know where to find it if you're interested.

I personally have never really liked the 100-400, but the setup mentioned guvea you 300mm f4, 420mm f5.6. So it's the similar aperture values but prime lens quality.
 
Jamie,

Ive looked at your 300mm F4 IS and thats sort of what got me thinking that I need something longer than a 200mm! Cue the start of google searches for 100-400mm vs 300mm F4 results lol...

I agree with you that the 300mm F4 L IS wins optically over the 100-400L, but for those moments where I need less than 300mm it would mean a lens swap.

Also, if I got a 300mm F4, I would have to keep the 70-200 F4 IS which is money I dont really have available.

Tough call :(
 
1.4 tc on the 70-200 would give you 280mm. I find zoos not great for animals and Bristol zoo was even worse than London. The stuff at needs the longer lenses is often behind glass as well (eg big cats) and just is no fun to shoot anyway. Have you tried the Cotswold wildlife park? I had much better luck there and shot with a 70-200 the whole time!
 
Just a side note, zoo's aren't the only thing I want to shoot!
I mean in general, that 200mm is a bit short.

I feel that if I had a 100-400 I would be able to use the lens in a much wider field of photography...

Im just not sure how much better IQ, Focus, IS, and portability the 70-200 is than the 100-400?
 
futureal33 said:
Jamie,

Ive looked at your 300mm F4 IS and thats sort of what got me thinking that I need something longer than a 200mm! Cue the start of google searches for 100-400mm vs 300mm F4 results lol...

I agree with you that the 300mm F4 L IS wins optically over the 100-400L, but for those moments where I need less than 300mm it would mean a lens swap.

Also, if I got a 300mm F4, I would have to keep the 70-200 F4 IS which is money I dont really have available.

Tough call :(
Click to expand...

I understand that you mean, wouldn't it be great if life allowed you to have all 3 :p

But it depends on what you mostly shoot to be honest. For now maybe getting a 1.4x and then saving upto to add a 300mm to it afterwards.
 
futureal33 said:
J

Im just not sure how much better IQ, Focus, IS, and portability the 70-200 is than the 100-400?
Click to expand...

Well the prime will be sharper but it's certainly not night and day and if you add a converter to the 70-200 then the 100-400 has the better IQ although the 70-200 with converter gives very acceptable results. The catch is you need to stop down a stop or two to get best IQ from that combo.
 
futureal33 said:
Just a quick sideways movement:

Maybe a stupid question but would a 2x TC fitted to an F4 lens definitely lose autofocus? Or would the centre point still work?

For info...

5Dmk2
70-200 F4L IS
2x Kenko / Canon TC
Click to expand...

Correct, you would most likely lose the AF. I think you are running into one of the problems of owning a full frame camera. Reach is very difficult to obtain without great expense or weight or not having the short end range. I think in this case the 100-400 may be the better lens for you. Try hiring first, it is what I do when I have a difficult lens decision.
 
If I had to choose today between the 100-400L and 400 f/5.6L I'd go for the latter but that's because I mainly shoot small birds and I was almost always using the 100-400 at full zoom anyway, but for maximum flexibility and all round use the 100-400L takes some beating.
 
Side by side, for equal focal lengths, would the 70-200 F4L IS and 100-400 be equal in terms of IQ? Or would be it be very close?

Basically, im trying to weigh up if I got the 100-400 instead of the 70/200 would I sometimes wish I had both? Or would the 100-400 do everything the 70-200 does anyway?
 
I have both the siggy 150-500 and a canon 70-200. They do different jobs in my mind and the 70-200 is much lighter and easier to carry. Mind you the 100-400 is about half the size and weight of the 150-500!
 
futureal33 said:
Or buy a cropper and stick on my 70-200 F4 L for zoo trips? Or is that a silly idea?
Click to expand...


You'd still struggle for reach in a lot of situations tbh. I have a 70-200 f/2.8L and it's my least used lens for most of the stuff i do, but it's just too damned good when I do use t so I hang onto it.
 
CT said:
You'd still struggle for reach in a lot of situations tbh. I have a 70-200 f/2.8L and it's my least used lens for most of the stuff i do, but it's just too damned good when I do use t so I hang onto it.
Click to expand...

Thats what Im worried about! The 70-200 F4 IS is so sharp - I dont want to sell it and regret it if the 100-400 wasnt just as good.

So really, my current thinking is either

a) Keep 70/200 and buy 1.4x TC for those times I need 200mm + (which isnt likely to be VERY often, but will occur from time to time)
or
b) Sell 70/200 and buy 100/400 IS and use that as my only zoom lens.

Ive used a 70-200 2.8 before which weighs about the same as the 100-400 so the weight isnt much of an issue for me... my main concern is IQ vs the 70/200 F4L IS.

Hmm so A) or B) :)

ps - Im using it in conjunction with a 28-75mm f2.8 so the 100-400 would leave a small gap between 70 and 100mm, but thats not really a problem tbh!
 
Last edited:
futureal33 said:
Thats what Im worried about! The 70-200 F4 IS is so sharp - I dont want to sell it and regret it if the 100-400 wasnt just as good.

So really, my current thinking is either

a) Keep 70/200 and buy 1.4x TC for those times I need 200mm + (which isnt likely to be VERY often, but will occur from time to time)
or
b) Sell 70/200 and buy 100/400 IS and use that as my only zoom lens.

Ive used a 70-200 2.8 before which weighs about the same as the 100-400 so the weight isnt much of an issue for me... my main concern is IQ vs the 70/200 F4L IS


Hmm so A) or B) :)

ps - Im using it in conjunction with a 28-75mm f2.8 so the 100-400 would leave a small gap between 70 and 100mm, but thats not really a problem tbh!
Click to expand...

LOL Decisions all the time and then there's that money stuff! :D

The 70-200f/4 is known for it's sharpness - in fact at large apertures it's sharper than the f/2.8 version so I can see where you'r coming from.

I'd seriously doubt that the slight difference in sharpness between the 70-200 and the 100-400 is going to cause you much concern I always found the 100-400 a sharp performer. There's not much in it but it's actually a bit lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8 - you'll know you've had it hanging round your neck after a full day.

Well I just had the 100-400 initially and the thinly disguised excuse at the time for getting the 70-200 was that both me and the missus would have a useful zoom for zoo visits and similar situations, with her taking the 100-400 and me using the new lens. The problem is she always held me to the deal and using the 100-400 she outgunned me all day long. :D

If I still had the 100-400 I'm sure I'd be inclined to sell the 70-200 and I don't think I'd greatly miss it.

Good luck with what you decide anyway, but I don't think you need be concerned about IQ from the 100-400L - I was always more than happy with mine. This was taken years ago at full zoom on a 20D IIRC and it's a big crop too.....


Img_4020 1 by tonky8203, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
As an owner of a 100-400 I find it to be a sweet lens first off. With that statement said I also wish I had a 70-200 for things outside of birding and zoo trips. My idea for you is to try the 1.4 TC and save up to get the other. There is not a 1 do all lens that is affordable. Good luck and keep us updated.
 
Sell the 135 and 70-200 f4 IS and buy the 70-200f2.8mkII and 2xMkIII extender?
 
Pps - can anyone 100% confirm that a 2x TC will not AutoFocus on my 5D2 with the 70-200 F4L IS?

I know it would be F8, but everything I read says "will probably not focus" / "might not focus" - I haven't read anything that says it definitely wont focus...

Ppps - whats this I read about taping over some pics to retain autofocus??
 
I'm in a very similar position (5dii, 70-200 f4 IS) and I also find I need more reach on occasion and it's painful when you don't have it. In the end I've decided to get the 1.4 extender and run with that for a while. It basically comes down the the 80:20 rule. I'll only need > 280mm maybe 5% of the time, and it's just not worth scarficing the brilliance of the 70-200, which is a range I use maybe 30%-40% of the time. I don't have the money to simply buy more L lenses to solve this problem, so the 1.4x is the answer.

That said, I've been following the 70-200 f2.8 mk ii with 2xmkiii threads closely, because that would give me a large advantage in the sub 200mm range (I could use f2.8 fairly often) whilst also giving acceptable 400mm pics. If I was going to splash some cash, it would probably be on this solution. It's a cost/benefit analysis based on how often you'd use the shorter/longer end of the 70-400 range, and I'm weighted towards the shorter end, but only you can decide if you are.

Will
 
futureal33 said:
Pps - can anyone 100% confirm that a 2x TC will not AutoFocus on my 5D2 with the 70-200 F4L IS?

I know it would be F8, but everything I read says "will probably not focus" / "might not focus" - I haven't read anything that says it definitely wont focus...

Ppps - whats this I read about taping over some pics to retain autofocus??
Click to expand...

It's not about if it will focus, its about how well it will focus. Even if you could find a 3rd party extender that allows autofocus, it's unlikely to do a good job. There's a reason Canon disable AF above f5.6 (on none 1-series bodies), and that's because the light levels are generally too low to provide reliable focussing.
 
futureal33 said:
Will,

How do you find the performance of the 70-200 F4 IS with the 1.4x ? (also, which 1.4x did you get?)

I think I could probably get by with 280mm and then a crop of that photo. As long as the quality was better than just taking a smaller crop of a photo without the TC if you get me?
Click to expand...

I haven't got the 1.4x yet (but will soon), but from what I've read it plays well with this lens. There's loads of threads on this to search for and there's a useful comparison tool here.
 
You're trials and tribulations good entertainment Nick :D

I think the answer is you can't have it all and the best compromise solution is going to be a pretty personal decision. Just some random thoughts... :)

70-200L 4 IS works well with a Kenko 1.4x, but I find 200-280mm is just not enough so I don't use it much. When a longer lens than 200mm is called for, I seem to want 400-plus. I've not tried a 2x but would put money on it not working on a 5D2. You'd certainly need to tape the pins on a reporting TC but that doesn't change the f/number which is the problem. Even if it did work, in some conditions, the AF would be very poor and you'd lose a lot of quality even with a Canon extender.

70-200L 2.8 Mk2 plus 2x would be my choice. Very few zooms are good enough to take a 2x, but that one is and actually works very well, especially the new Mk3. Check out TheDigitalPicture. If you look at it as a 70-400 2.8-5.6 'zoom' it's an extremely appealing combo. If the Mk2 had been available when I bought my f/4 version, I think the 2x extender option might have swung it. No regrets though, because the f/4 we both have is just such a sweet lens to use, and so sharp.

100-400L works great. I miss mine, even though I didn't use it much. Such a great all-rounder, jack of all trades and master of quite a few. Hard one to beat, but a big beast if you only need the short end.

How about the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS? Inevitably big and heavy, but currently high on my lust list and looking to get one to try. There are only a few about but it looks to be very good (miles better than the old version) and an absolute bargain at £2k. Sharp, good AF and OS. Appears to take extenders quite well too... :thumbs: Micloi on here has one, also see review at www.photozone.de
 
Richard,

Thanks for putting up with my endless questions :)

I think I am fairly decided on getting the 1.4x TC to use with my 70-200 F4IS (which BTW is focussing correctly now - after some cat-walk tests last night it kept up fine, and comparing focus speed videos on youtube, I can report it seems normal!)

The Sigma 120-300 OS looks very good indeed...but the size and weight of the thing puts me off! I think I would get the 70-200 2.8 IS Mk2 if I was going to go 2.8 tbh :)

Will keep you updated as to what I do and how I get on!
 
I haven't got any experience of the 70-200 range of lenses so I can't do any kind of comparison but I've not found any problems using my 100-400L on my 7D.

Auto focus works quickly enough to get decent shots at cricket matches, I can get decent running shots of players at rugby games, at the weekend I also used it to get shots of the annual Southend Pier Swim.

I find it a really useful and versatile lens and IMO compliments my 15-85mm nicely.

I'm know there's a difference in IQ between it and the 70-200 and then in turn the telephoto L primes are better again but in the real World, I don't think the difference would justify the extra expense of say the 70-200 2.8 + TC or having a couple of telephotos primes which would need swapping and in the process of doing so missing a shot or two.

One thing I've learnt since I've started coming on this site is there always seems to be a compromise. If you want something that's flexible then the compromise is the price and/or IQ, if you want top notch IQ it wont be cheap and possibly not that flexible.

It's horses for courses and if the 70-200 isn't giving you the required range and telephoto primes aren't felxible for your needs, the 100-400L is a good option ;)
 
To throw another option into the mix, what about the 70-300L?
 
I think I'm fairly decided on getting a 1.4X for my 70-200 F4L IS for those times I need 200mm +
And if "those times" occur more frequently than I am currently thinking they will, I may buy a 300mm F4L IS and use the 1.4x with that, giving 420mm F5.6 IS- which should be enough!

Dont know much about the 70-300L tbh, but Im going to stick with the above :)

No doubt my plans will all change again in the next 5 minute lol
 
Time's up! :D

To be fair to Nick, the 70-20/300/400 question comes up all the time, and it's never an easy one. Canon just has so many options around that range - all of them good, none of them perfect.

Nikon users don't have this problem ;)
 
If the 400mm f5.6 was IS - it would be a no brainer!

But as I would like IS, and dont have 1 series body which has AutoFocus at F8, my options are fairly limited (given that I dont have £5k to spend!!)

300mm f/4 ISL + 1.4xTC = 420mm f/5.6 IS
200mm f/2.8L + 2xTC = 400mm f5.6 (no IS)
70-200 F4L IS + 1.4xTC = 98-280mm F/5.6 IS
Sigma 150-500 OS
100-400L IS - Im put off this by the 1st Gen IS System though which only gives 1.5stops of IS.....

The Sigma 150-500 might be a good option, its a bit of a beast though! Although it offers more range than the rest, IS/OS system, decent price tag (one just sold for £600 on eBay minutes ago) and the IQ is supposedly pretty good!

Thoughts?
 
I know it's been mentioned before, but I think the 70-200 2.8 Mk2 with 2x Canon extender looks favourite to me... Very potent combo, stunningly good at most things, pretty good at everything else with an extender, and great value if it replaces three other lenses.

I'm not helping am I :D
 
Hmm Id somewhat overlooked that comment because of the price of the 70-200 f2.8 IS mk2 new, which would put most people off! But when you consider what ive spent on the 70-200 F4L IS and am now looking at spending another £700 for the 300mm F4L, the price is around the same.

It would probably also replace my 135L F2 for portraits

Its just a big b****r to lug around everywhere isnt it, thats the only downside I guess
 
futureal33 said:
Hmm Id somewhat overlooked that comment because of the price of the 70-200 f2.8 IS mk2 new, which would put most people off! But when you consider what ive spent on the 70-200 F4L IS and am now looking at spending another £700 for the 300mm F4L, the price is around the same.

It would probably also replace my 135L F2 for portraits

Its just a big b****r to lug around everywhere isnt it, thats the only downside I guess
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I see it, and if we were speculating I wonder if that's how Canon sees it too. They've had ages to upgrade the 100-400L for example (not to mention the 300L 4 and 400L 5.6) but have chosen to leave them on the list and add the 70-200 Mk2 and 70-300L for example.

If you look at the 70-200 Mk2 and Mk3 extenders like that, it replaces your 70-200 f/4, and makes a pretty good job of replacing the 135 2, and the 100-400L. Great IS too. And you get less weight in your bag and more cash in your pocket :)
 
Last edited:
I find my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Kenko x2 TC does a wonderful job at Marwell (where the enclosures can be huge!!). Going again this next week!

I used the use my beloved Canon 55-250 and while very useable I did myself wanting more mm!
 
The ISO crops on DigitalPicture certainly look impressive HERE but from doing a quick google, it seems real world testing is indicating that anything above a 1.4x is sacrificing IQ that the 300mm F4 L would have kept... back to the old story really!

So with that in mind, the 70-200 2.8 IS Mk2 would certainly replace the 70-200 f/4 and would probably replace the 135L F2 (there or there abouts) but price wise its pretty neck and neck... and Id rather have 2 lenses ideally rather than 1 beast to cover all...

Back to my original decision to keep 70-200 F4 & 1.4xTC combo I think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top