Need Help 70-200L or 100-400L QUESTION Added :)

[Paul]

Ok Canon Guru's, I need your help. I am trying to decide which way makes more sense for me. I am only able to buy one so I am trying to decide if buying the 70-200 2.8 makes more sense or the 100-400 would be better suited for my needs.

I have been posting here for a couple of years now so most of you have seen what I like to shoot. Scenery, landscape, pets (got that covered with my 17-80) But when I am looking for that zoom shot it seems as if I never have enough lenght. I own a peice of Junk sigma 100-300 that has horrible glass in it and made of plastic.

As for my habits, I do not shoot sports ( usually), I shoot in either ok or super poor lighting conditions (which is why that 2.8 is attractive) But I have heard from people when you add a teleconverter you for the added distance you lose some f-stops and focus speed. I guess personally I am leaning towards a 100-400 IS USM L since the prices are dropping on them and are found for under $1200 now from various online dealers.

My question for those of you who have more experience with those long bazooka lenses Is the 100-400 right for me or should I be conservative and go 70-200? (currently about $1500)

[WCS]

Hi Paul,

I have both lenses that you are asking about. If it is reach you are looking for, you will be disappointed in the 70-200. I use my 70-200 more for sports photography and for portraits. I use the 100-400 on birds and landscapes. f/2.8 is nice, but for the type of shots you usually take, you will likely be using a tripod anyway. As for adding teleconverters, in order to get to 400mm with the 70-200, you will need a 2x converter. With that, you will be at f/5.6 and a big loss in sharpness. Both are outstanding lenses and the 70-200 is my favorite lens, but from what I know about your shooting, the 100-400 is the best fit for you.

[Steve Foss]

Paul, IMO it's a pure tradeoff.

It boils down to which need is the bigger one: Reach or speed. Whichever lens you decide on, you'll give something up. IQ on the 70-200 is excellent, and a 1.4 TC on that lens only slows focus speed slightly, so you can get out a little farther if needed and maintain IQ. And you can strap a flash on the 100-400 for indoor sports. Neither is a perfect solution, however.

As predominantly a nature photographer who had some sports duties, I chose the 100-400 because it offered great IQ and flexibility and reach, and was fast enough for my outdoor sports needs. With flash, I was able to get the lens to perform well enough on indoor sports to satisfy my clients. Had the majority of my needs been in sports, however, I'd have chosen the 70-200 f2.8.

Whichever way you go, you'll like it!

I've found a few vendors who sell the 100-400 new for $1,200 or less, but two of those got horrible reviews on another camera forum, and the third is offering gray-market lenses, which Canon will not repair under warranty, if memory serves.

I have heard OK things about Sonic Cameras, but am uneasy when they're offering all those Canon L lenses for hundreds less than other online retailers. They offer the 100-400 for $1,149 when they are $1,400 and up at most others, and the 70-200 f2.8L IS for $1,199 when they're over $1,650 at most others. That's a huge price difference and a very low markup above wholesale. If you pick up a lens from them, I'd be very interested in hearing your review, because they'd be a great source if they are trustworthy and offer good service. That'd get me to switch from Canoga Camera in a heartbeat.

[MN Shutterbug]

I agree with WCS on the lens. Sure, the 70-200 will give you the same reach with the 2X converter, but if you're out shooting old barns and a beautiful raptor shows up, good luck with the bird staying there long enough for you to get the converter mounted on the camera. I believe you would be much better off with the 100-400. You're a versatile shooter and you need a versatile lens.

Re: online sources, be cautious. I think for every legit one, there are 10 out to screw you over. I'm a member of another forum that has a section just for reviews of these types of companies. There are so many horror stories. Canoga, B & H, Adorama and Amazon are the only ones I'd trust. There is a site called resellerratings that you can access to read reviews. Basically, like Steve said, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Sidenote: Steve is selling his and he has proved many times, it is a very sharp and capable lens.

Good luck in your decision.

[Steve Foss]

To X-T's list I'll add Hunt's and KEH. It's also worth calling the retailer's toll-free sales line and telling the rep you are weighing your pricing options before choosing where to order and asking if they're offering any price breaks not shown online. Sometimes that alone can bring the price down a bit, since they know you're just as likely to order it from somewhere else online if it's cheaper at the other place. Save $100 here and $100 there and pretty soon you're talking some real money.

[finnbay]

I bought my first dlsr body from a cut-rate company (was a newbie, didn't know any better) and though I wouldn't say it was a nightmare, it sure was a bad dream. Ended up costing me at least as much, if not more, than if I'd gone with a major player in the market. If you check reseller ratings, pay particular attention to the customer service.

By the way, I have both lenses and it's apples and oranges. Both good glass for what they're intended for. You have to decide what you are going to be using it the most for.

[Paul]

Hey XT, Thanks for the tip on the resellarratings HSOforum. I can only say phew.... that was close, though They have no reviews on the company I was going to order from it made me do some more checking.

[polarsusd81]

Yeah, probably a good thing you checked them out, no rating is probably worse than a bad rating. Either means its a new company, or nobody was gutzy enough to send them any money.

[Steve Foss]

Just for giggles I looked up Sonic Cameras on the resellerratings site. Yikes! Nobody has a good thing to say about them. They've got a rating down around 1.1. Canoga's 9.92 lifetime rating relflects the satisfaction I've always gotten from them.

Thanks for that info, Mike!

[MN Shutterbug]

 Originally Posted By: polarsusd81

Yeah, probably a good thing you checked them out, no rating is probably worse than a bad rating. Either means its a new company, or nobody was gutzy enough to send them any money.

Or, they sell under different store names. I've read where this is very common. Once the bad reviews start stacking up, they just start up another online store under a different name.

[mountaindew]

Paul,

I also have both of the lens you're talking about. I mostly use the 100-400 for wildlife and sports, and the 70-200mm f2.8 is awesome for indoor games or low light conditions.

I agree what everyone had said. Especially WCS and Steve has said. It's up to you what you want to do mostly on...wildlife or indoors. I've been very happy with my 100-400 and that's what I use mostly for outdoors pretty much most of the time.

I totally trust B & H that's where I get my equipment there. They're realiable and very reputated store.

[Paul]

So I have one more question before leapind headfirst into debt. I have been reading in more than one place that the 70-200 is a good deal sharper than the 100-400. Does the 70-200 lose any sharpness with a 1.4x or 2x attached?

Question 2. I Think it was Steve that said the 100-400 with a teleconverter loses autofocus. Is this true with a 70-200 2.8?

I am really stuck on which lense to buy. Help

[Paul]

Another queston. WIth a 70-200 2.8, DO you think that the extra 500 for IS is worth the expense or can I guy get buy with out IS since it is 2.8? I beleive the lense is a constant 2.8 also is it not?

[Steve Foss]

Paul, lots to think and talk about in your comparison, so this will be long. At the end, it's all just food for thought, and you'll just make the decision that seems best to you.

I've had tons of experience with the 100-400, a lot of experience with the 70-200 f2.8 non IS and some experience with the 70-200 f2.8 IS. And these are all my opinions based on that experience. Others' opinions may differ, and they are just as valuable as mine. Here goes.

The 70-200 f2.8 lens is a constant f2.8. The IS question depends largely, IMO, on what you'll be shooting. If you are shooting action sports, IS tends not to be that valuable, and many pro sports shooters turn off the IS when they're after action shots because the camera/lens tracks the subject and IS isn't quite as valuable in those situations. When I shot sports, I left the IS on in mode 2 (panning mode) and had good luck with that.

If you plan on shooting nature, I'd really recommend the IS regardless of which lens you choose, because those animals tend to be more active when light is low, and with f2.8 AND IS you'll have a pretty deadly combo.

Worth the $500? Well, I have the non-IS version of the 70-200 f2.8 coming because of all the indoor wedding work and the needs for f2.8. I'd have gotten the IS version in a heartbeat if I could have afforded it, but I'll make do with a monopod and some very strong steadying technique.

IMO, IS is one of the best tools out there.

On the previous question, here are my expanded thoughts on comparing the lenses. The 70-200 series is Canon's sharpest telephoto zoom series, and as such will be slightly sharper than the 100-400 when both are shot wide open at max focal length. However, the 100-400 is unparalleled for nature shooting because it couples affordable price with great zoom range and excellent IQ. Many, many times I've zoomed back out to get environmental shots of birds and animals that would not have been possible with a prime. Using a monopod, I've made sharp captures with this lens down to 1/30 sec.

My 100-400 produced about the same IQ wide open at 400mm as the 70-200 did wide open with a 1.4 TC on it. Adding a TC always degrades IQ slightly, though the 1.4 produces very little degradation. The 2x degradation is quite noticeable. A TC on the 100-400 will sacrifice autofocus on all bodies except "1" series bodies. The "1" bodies will autofocus a lens/TC combo with a max aperture of f8, but all lower-quality bodies will only do that with a max aperture of f5.6 on the combo, and the 100-400 max aperture already is f5.6 at 400mm. All Canon bodies will autofocus the 70-200 f2.8 with either TC.

Don't pay much attention to online comments about the so-called "softness" of the 100-400. There ARE bad copies of that lens out there, just as with any lens, and I know some folks have gotten bad copies. But in many cases, the comments are from people who haven't bothered to master the learning curve of that lens and are frustrated, or who are overstating the issue to make themselves look authoritative. And the loudest voice, even an uninformed one, tends to set the tone on a lot of the forums where these things are discussed. The lens also sharpens up noticeably at 400mm when stopped down one stop to f8, and that's the way I've been shooting it the whole time I've had it.

Comparing these two lens setups is one of the most common requests on tons of online photography forums, and it's amazing to me how fast reason gets thrown out the window when people start debating lens choices. Lenses are just tools.

If nature is your primary game, with some sports thrown in, the 100-400 will be the better tool of the two in your equation. The longer reach compared with the 70-200/1.4 TC is important for that, and putting a 2TC on the 70-200 will degrade IQ noticeably below what the 100-400 offers. The 100-400 will be a good outdoor sports lens, but won't be suitable for indoor sports unless you use flash (I used mine for outdoor and indoor sports as described for three years).

If sports is your game, with a little nature thrown in, the 70-200 wins hands down. With the 1.4 TC for added reach, you'll have about 300mm, and woodscraft and patience out in the environment will allow you to get close enough to photograph many nature subjects.

So, those darn tradeoffs, eh? I will add that, whichever way you go, you are getting into Canon's premier lens line, and you will not be disappointed with image and build quality. The L lenses are simply GRRRREAT! Have fun with it!

[Paul]

Thanks Steve That answers a lot of my questions and I think that I will pounce on the 100-400.

[Steve Foss]

Glad to be of help, Paul. Let me know if you'd like some help with the learning curve and I'll throw in some tips. So will others, I'm sure. At least three or four others on this board shoot that lens a lot.

You might also consider picking up a lightweight monopod as part of the same purchase. You can get decent light ones from Slik for about $30, and the MP and IS are a great combo.

Where you buying it, if I may ask?

[Paul]

I have a Manfroto monopod with the same head as my tipod, all switchable back and forth.

[Steve Foss]

Perfect!

[MARINERMAGNUM]

One thing I notice more times than not when checking people's exif data is that if they are shooting the 100-400,the data almost always shows they are at 400mm when taking the picture. [i am guilty too!] Last night I framed some images at 400mm,then pulled back to around 250-300mm and walked closer until the shot was framed the same as it was at 400mm.

All I can say is wow! The 100-400 I have is very sharp at 400 but I was blown away with the increase in sharpness at the shorter focal lengths.

I will be doing this more now that I've seen the difference-and I encourage other owners of this lens to try it. It's very suprising.

I can't wait to try some tests comparing the 70-200 with 1.4xTC to the 100-400 @300mm.

And Paul,if your jumping head first into debt as you say,just buy 'em both!

[Steve Foss]

MM, you are dead on!

Stopping down to f8 at 400mm is one way to get the sharpest out of that lens, but backing off, even sometimes to only 325 or 350mm, has the same effect (the sweet spot varies slightly from copy to copy). That's one of the tips that helps people maximize the lens' potential. There are plenty of times you don't actually NEED all 400 of those millimeters.

Show us some unsharpened comparison tests, will you MM? It will be interesting to see how they each stack up. I've wanted to do that myself, but every time I've had a loaner 70-200 f2.8 it's slipped my mind, and now that I have that lens coming I've already sold my 100-400.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

We'll do!