70-200mm f2.8 L or 100-400mm L?

P

peterattheboro

Suspended / Banned
Messages
320
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking at both of these lenses and can obviously only get the one.

I'll be shooting mainly motorsport and other fast action sports so I think the better choice would be the 70-200mm but I really like the range on the 100-400.

I really don't know.

Help me decide.

Cheers.
 
I have the 70-200 and love it. Funnily enough I'm thinking about getting the 100-400 as an addition.

The 70-200 is a great lens but just lacks the reach you'll need. I went from a 100-300 thinking the 200 would be enough with the extra IQ but tbh I miss the extra reach of the 300.

Perhaps a 1.4 or 2.0 converter would be an option for you?
 
Get the 70-200, and a 2x converter.
 
Wouldn't I lose a stop or 2 using the convertor though?

Considering the 100-400 is cheaper I may aswell just get that?
 
the 70-200 with an converter will lose IQ.. :shrug:
 
What camera are you using?
If it's a 1.6 crop with a 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4 tc it will give you a fov of 448mm and an f stop of f4
 
I went from a 28-300 to a 70-200 and miss the length (especially at Silverstone).

If I've still got a job next year I think I'll be after the 100-400 or the sigma 120-400 :)
 
peterattheboro said:
30D
Click to expand...

I may be selling my 100-400 soon Peter.

When i bought it i asked exactly the same question as you just have, and the quality of the 70-200 F/2.8 + 2xtc is much softer at 400mm than the 100-400 at 400mm.

However, since i've had it i've hardly used it, i took it to Bempton when i first bought it and to Sunderland Airshow and since then it's literally sat in my camera bag. If you're interested let me know because i'll be sticking in the FS section soon. You are more than welcome to come and have a play too if you like.

Wez130
 
peterattheboro said:
Wouldn't I lose a stop or 2 using the convertor though?

Considering the 100-400 is cheaper I may aswell just get that?
Click to expand...

It's swings and roundabouts here with the two you have in mind..

With the 2x convertor, you'll lose two stops, but with the 70-200 used without a convertor, the f/2.8 will mean that the lens will let more light onto the sensor, meaning faster shutter speeds in poor light..

I wouldn't like to say which of the two I'd chose as I don't do motorsport, but these are some of the technical considerations, regardless of what of the two you choose :)

IIRC, the 70-200 2.8 doesn't take the 2x all that well.

Hope, along with other contributions that this helps a little :)
 
wez130 said:
I may be selling my 100-400 soon Peter.

When i bought it i asked exactly the same question as you just have, and the quality of the 70-200 F/2.8 + 2xtc is much softer at 400mm than the 100-400 at 400mm.

However, since i've had it i've hardly used it, i took it to Bempton when i first bought it and to Sunderland Airshow and since then it's literally sat in my camera bag. If you're interested let me know because i'll be sticking in the FS section soon. You are more than welcome to come and have a play too if you like.

Wez130
Click to expand...

PM sent. Thanks. :)


markta said:
It's swings and roundabouts here with the two you have in mind..

With the 2x convertor, you'll lose two stops, but with the 70-200 used without a convertor, the f/2.8 will mean that the lens will let more light onto the sensor, meaning faster shutter speeds in poor light..

I wouldn't like to say which of the two I'd chose as I don't do motorsport, but these are some of the technical considerations, regardless of what of the two you choose :)

IIRC, the 70-200 2.8 doesn't take the 2x all that well.

Hope, along with other contributions that this helps a little :)
Click to expand...


I think the 100-400 will be quite bad in low light but I can always take off the 2x on the 70-200mm and have a decent lens to play with.

It really is six and two threes :)
 
the IQ is pretty damned good even at 400mm
and the lens is even better at 70-200.
OK so you lose a couple of stops but that only comes out at 5.6 anyway.
I did find though, coming from the 70-300 that the 70-200 took a little getting used to
a bit weird but it was almost like I had to "run it in" to get the best from it...as I said..weird :shrug:

a couple at 400mm
FRAC_BASE.jpg


TigHead.jpg


LS1.jpg
 
Cobra. Sold.

Think i'm going to go for that one.

My mate also has the 70-200mm so I suppose we can swap and share gear.
 
got to be 70-200 f2.8 more useful for more subjects
 
Thanks mate.

Still going for the 400mm I think. Got a 24-70mm lens also. Only gap i'm missing is 70-100mm which I don't think i'll miss?
 
mrgubby said:
I went from a 28-300 to a 70-200 and miss the length (especially at Silverstone).

If I've still got a job next year I think I'll be after the 100-400 or the sigma 120-400 :)
Click to expand...

I've just got a 120-400mm Sigma lens and I love it. IQ does drop off a little wide open at 400mm, but for the price it's an excellent bit of glass. The IS system seems pretty good too, I can go as low as 1/30th handheld at 400mm and still get fairly decent results.
 
One thing to bear in mind is that fast glass doesn't only mean you can shoot with a wider aperture, on Canon X0D bodies f2.8 and faster opens up more AF points for the camera to use so AF performance is much better, I've got the 70-200 f2.8 and also have used the 70-200 f4 at a few race meetings this year and the faster lens means less OOF shots.

At most circuits you don't miss the extra reach, but places like Silverstone you might.
 
peterattheboro said:
Cobra. Sold.

Think i'm going to go for that one.

My mate also has the 70-200mm so I suppose we can swap and share gear.
Click to expand...

I think that you may have miss-understood :)
thats the 70-200 + 2xTC NOT the 100-400 :D
unless I put you off it of course ;)
 
I've got the 70-200 F2.8IS and the 100-400 IS. If I had to give one up I'd let go of the 70-200.
 
Haha... very mixed views here then.

So basically I can go with any by the sounds of it :p
 
Both are good lenses ... Down to personal choice really ... :shrug:

The 70-200 IS is one of Canon's best but may not have enough reach for what you need. I sometimes use mine with the 1.4x extender to get to 280mm. Still good and f/4 .. :thumbs:

Only just got the 100-400. The push-pull zoom is not easy for everyone to get used to.
 
i have used both for motorsport, the 70-200 locks on instantly and hardle ever drops focus, the 100-400 struggles somewhat in comaprison, and if the weather isnt great then the 100-400 will struggle even more.

IMHO the 100-400 can be very soft sometimes. My 100-400 hasn't been out of my bag in the last year! i would much rather use the 70-200 with a 1.4 conv. as people have said the 2x looses too much IQ.

The lens for fast action is always the 70-200 2.8
 
Zaphod said:
i have used both for motorsport, the 70-200 locks on instantly and hardle ever drops focus, the 100-400 struggles somewhat in comaprison, and if the weather isnt great then the 100-400 will struggle even more.

IMHO the 100-400 can be very soft sometimes. My 100-400 hasn't been out of my bag in the last year! i would much rather use the 70-200 with a 1.4 conv. as people have said the 2x looses too much IQ.

The lens for fast action is always the 70-200 2.8
Click to expand...

After a bit of research i've come to the same conclusion. But I may go with the 2x instead of the 1.4x. I've been using 200mm max for the past 6 months and think it's fantastic so I can continue to use that on tracks such as Croft and Knockhill. For tracks like Silverstone then the 2x will be really useful :thumbs:

My loan application got accepted last night so i'm going to pick up the 70-200mm f2.8 :D
 
how about hiring them each for week?

Also - might be worth considering a long prime like the 300mm and/or a body with better noise / higher res for crops (5D2?).
 
peterattheboro said:
But I may go with the 2x instead of the 1.4x.
Click to expand...


I'd hire a 1.4 & 2.0 for a weekend and see how well you get on with them.

I've got a Kenko Pro 2.0x on my Sigma 70-200 and find that the AF with my 30D is not anywhere good enough for Motorsport :shake:
 
Motorsport kit bag: (Canon) 70-200 2.8 and (Canon) 300 f4 and a 1.4x TC, covers you for pretty much every kind of motorsport except Silverstone where a 12000mm with a 2xTC still won't get you full frame :D
 
Have to say that I went with the combo of 70-200 and 400m F5.6. The 70-200 is a lighter for general purpose work, and the 400mm is sharper at the long end, which is where I'm told the 100-400 is starting to lose it's edge a little.
 
Just got myself a 70-200 2.8 USM from a well known aution site. I've paid 700 pounds which seems to be about the going rate for this lens at the moment. I know there was some keen activity on the bidding in the dying seconds, but my one and only bid came past the winning post! :1st:
 
My past 2 threads in the Birds section (just do a search for all my threads) were taken with the 70-200 2.8 IS and 2x extender....they're pin sharp at f6.3 upwards! f5.6 is useable too...but doesn't quite match the 100-400, which I used to have!

The f2.8 sealed the deal for me at the closer range...it is very useful!
 
I already own a 1.4 TC, I got this in the past cople week in anticipation of getting a 70-200 2.8 I may consider switch to a 2x conveter later. But I'll see what results I get over the next few months. Motorsport is the intended use, British Motorsport, so lots of rainy, dark days, hence the the required 2.8! ;)
Thanks purpleclouds, I will try some bird photography also. I'm all excied!! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top