Canon 70-200 or 100-400

W

wolfyccfc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
217
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I am looking for a lens at the telephoto end,I mainly shoot landscapes and currently have a 16-35 f4 and 24-105 f4, I am between the 70-200 and 100-400, my main concern is will the 100-400 be ok at the 100-200 end where it will mostly be used for landscapes? I can’t see any reason why not but just wondered as most landscapers use the 70-200.
 
100/400 is a big lump to carry around if you're only using the 200 end. Having said that although I dont do landscapes I have both lenses and my 100/400 gets more use, but that's cos I do airshows and birds so 400 is more useful to me.
Matt
 
If you don't need 2.8, then I would take the 100-400 Mk2 every time. Fabulous lens, very versatile. It's very similar size and weight to a 70-200/2.8. The f/4 version is much lighter.
 
A lot of landscapers just go for the 70-200 f4L, much lighter than either the 100-400 and the 70-200 f2.8 and for landscapes you don't really need f2.8. Some don't even bother with the IS version as they use it on a tripod most of the time.
Save on weight and money with the 70-200 f4, that's what I'd do.
 
I also have both but use them for different purposes, the 70-200 is 2.8, the 100-400 is 4.5 to 5.6 so the light gathering is 2 stops different.
The other day I was taking pictures at a local football match and had to change lenses as the light was dropping to much for the 100-400 to keep the shutter speed up and the ISO as low as possible.
The 70-200 2.8 is well regarded for portraits as it can throw the background out of focus so well; not really important for landscapes.
 
As others have said unless you really need f2.8 get the 70-200 f4 and if you need extra reach add a 1.4 TC the combo works very well and you save weight and money
 
Thanks for all the reply’s, a couple more questions the answers raise.


If I went for a 70-200 2.8 and 2x extender would I effectively be at 5.6 at 400mm? Also as I have iso on my side with the 5d mkiv would this help if I went for the 100-400 on the odd occasion it was used in lower light? I suppose I’m trying to weigh up the argument of f2.8 and less reach against 5.6 and more reach.
 
Yes but, 70-200 f4is is supposed to be sharper than the 2.8 even wide open and is weather resistant even with a TC, a X2 would give you f8 and the MK4 will AF at f8 although not sure how many points with that combo. The 2.8 mk 1 is no longer supported by Canon so you would need the MK2 to ensure continued support. Depending on version of TC AF speed can be compromised a little as can image quality, depends on how fussy you are.
 
Last edited:
Mike54 said:
I also have both but use them for different purposes, the 70-200 is 2.8, the 100-400 is 4.5 to 5.6 so the light gathering is 2 stops different.
The other day I was taking pictures at a local football match and had to change lenses as the light was dropping to much for the 100-400 to keep the shutter speed up and the ISO as low as possible.
The 70-200 2.8 is well regarded for portraits as it can throw the background out of focus so well; not really important for landscapes.
Click to expand...

Dunno. The optical superiority of a 2.8 in edge sharpness is a big deal for landscapes and a lot of us shoot them wide open or quite open. If the whole view is in the distance why not shoot wide open and hand held getting the shutter speed down.
 
SFTPhotography said:
Dunno. The optical superiority of a 2.8 in edge sharpness is a big deal for landscapes and a lot of us shoot them wide open or quite open. If the whole view is in the distance why not shoot wide open and hand held getting the shutter speed down.
Click to expand...
Um, not sure I agree with that.
Many modern lenses can be sharp wide open, even at 2.8 but most will have a point where they reach optimum sharpness, usually between f8 and f11. If you're shooting landscapes, much of the time you are going to want a bit more depth of field.
It is true that if you use f2.8 at the relevant hyperfocal distance you'll still end up with a fair bit in focus, but not as much and not as sharp as if you were at stopped down. F2.8 would allow you to get more light into the sensor, but with a longer lens you're going to have to keep the shutter speed up, not down in order to keep the shot steady. If you want to keep the shutter speed down for the sake of cloud/water movement in a landscape shot, you're going to be talking about exposures closer to 1second or more which is beyond what you can do handheld even with VR.

If you have a need for a 70-200 f2.8, say for events/weddings, then fair enough use that for landscapes too if you want to carry it. But if you don't have another need for f2.8, then go for the 70-200 f4.
If you happened to use the 70-200 f4L for portraits, you'd find it'd actually do alright, and the bokeh is pretty nice, but with the money you'd saved, you could easily get an 85mm f1.8 for serious portrait work.
 
I’m really torn now between the 70-200f4 and 100-400. Do I cover the focal range in one go and invest in the 100-400 or do I plump for the 70-200? I have until Monday as I want to take advantage of the 10% deal.
 
For landscapes, of the two I'd get the 100-400. On a FF 200 isn't very long. The 70-300 would be a good choice too, smaller and lighter. You could get a 70-200 and a converter but then you've got to faff about taking it on and off and with the extra size/weight you may as well get one of the longer lenses anyway. Also for landscapes you don't usually need anything like F2.8. FWIW I have a 70-300L, great lens but am considering switching to 100-400 with my Sony.

edited to add, Who says landscapers use the 70-200 anyway? It's just a common lens. I know at least 2 pro landscape guys that use a 100-400.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Els said:
For landscapes, of the two I'd get the 100-400. On a FF 200 isn't very long. The 70-300 would be a good choice too, smaller and lighter. You could get a 70-200 and a converter but then you've got to faff about taking it on and off and with the extra size/weight you may as well get one of the longer lenses anyway. Also for landscapes you don't usually need anything like F2.8. FWIW I have a 70-300L, great lens but am considering switching to 100-400 with my Sony.

edited to add, Who says landscapers use the 70-200 anyway? It's just a common lens. I know at least 2 pro landscape guys that use a 100-400.
Click to expand...

Thanks Wayne, appreciate your thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top