70-200/2.8 IS or 100-400 IS - advice?

I have just enough money to buy one of these two lenses to use with

my 20D. As I see it, the choice comes down mainly to the type of

flexibility that I value more, focal length or speed, assuming I'm

comfortable with the push/pull zoom which is not something I'll know

until I live with one for a while. I'm leaning strongly toward the

100-400 for reasons explained below, but before I buy I thought I'd

see if anyone had any strong opinions one way or another, based on

their own experience.

 

I plan to use the lens for shooting kids' sports games, candid shots

of people, and some nature/landscape/wildlife shots. I'm not an avid

birder or anything, but enjoy taking a shot of a bird or beast if

the chance comes along. My only long lens has been a cheap 75-300

that I'm not thrilled with. I use it at 300mm fairly often when it's

on the camera.

 

People generally seem to be very happy with the longer zoom, and the

cost savings of the less expensive 100-400 gets me partway to my

next lens purchase (probably 10-22). Every time I think I've made up

my mind, I read another rave about the f/2.8 zoom and start wavering

again. :) I would not be able to get a 1.4x TC right away to extend

the 70-200, but I guess that would be a possibility in the future.

 

Anyone have any input to help me make this choice, given the uses I

described and your own experiences? Thanks in advance.

As a former 100-400 user, can I urge you to get the 70-200. It's not that the 100-400 is a bad lens - it isn't, but for the purposes you describe I suspect the 70-200 will be just fine, and it's a better and faster lens.

A few years ago a friend purchased the 100-400 and I really didn't like the push-pull but I didn't have an opportunity to use the lens. I chose the 70-200 IS over that because I knew I wanted to shoot indoor sports which f/2.8 was almost a requirement. Its a tough choice but I'm happy with my decision.

Philip:

I have owned the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) for about 10 years and the 100-400 IS for about 7 years. From my experience the 70-200 is a better lens optically, and with the 1.4X and 2X Canon converters is still optically an excellent lens. That said, I have been moderately happy with the 100-400 IS. The optical quality suffers when used with any converter, and the push-pull seems to be a vacuum cleaner around any dust. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the quality seems to suffer at the 400 mm end of the zoom, and the thing is quite cumbersome and heavy at the long end. I have used the 300 f4, IS and even with the 1.4X converter the images are sharper and more contrasty than the 100-400 without any converter. So I quess the bottom line is it is all a matter of compromises and there is really no single answer to all our photographic needs.

"As I see it, the choice comes down mainly to the type of flexibility that I value more,"

 

"I plan to use the lens for shooting kids' sports games, candid shots of people, and some nature/landscape/wildlife shots"

 

I think the 70-200mm fits what you mostly shoot better then the 100-400. For shooting kids and people and Sports games if you are not to far away the 70-200mm is better. You say some "nature/landscape/wildlife shots? out of those shots you only need the 400mm end of the 100-400mm for the wildlife part of it and the 70-200mm will do just fine for the rest, so to me most of what you take pictures of would be better suited with the 70-200 and the "IS" version of that lens would be a bonus. And I would not bother with the 1.4TC, save up for a 300mmf4L IS or the 400mm f5.6L or even the 100-400mm if you find that you get more into the wildlife shots as time goes bye, but for now it sounds like the 70-200mm is what you would use most and very happy with too. Thats what I think.

 

DK.

For sports I would definately go with the 70-200 f2.8 USM IS L lens. I have one for the sports and a 28-300 USM IS f3.5 L as well. I wanted to go with the 100-400 but the f3.5 of the 28-300 swayed me to it intstead. That and I can use the lens for racing and not have to change lenses all the time. It's great for team shots too. I only need to carry two lenses now, and if it's a day race/game...ONE! Some sports I will still use the 28-300 at night but with the 580EX flash mounted to the MKII N. Some sports however you cannot use a flash so that may limit it's use to daylight events.

The push pull zoom isn't hard to get used to, I got used to it in one day at Indy when trying the lenses out.

I have shot with the 100-400 and 28-300, the 35-350 and if it was still being made I'd have gotten the 35-350 over the other two. All three are very good lenses though.

 

JS

Take a look at the Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS. It's much more compact if L glass is not a requirement.

I have the 100-400, and was in a similar situation, but I think that for your purposes, the 70-200 is a better choice. I've used the 100-400 for sports and I always wish it was faster. It's also a little long when the action gets close to you. I do enough shooting at the long end of the 100-400 that I'm glad I picked it, and most likely would again. I have gotten some great images from it, but it's simply not as versatile of a lens, I don't think.

70-200/2.8 L IS plus Canon 2x Extender II when you need it - which won't be as often as you think - and don't look back.<p><img src = http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3457665-lg.jpg>

Philip, I think that you have already answered your own question. I don't have either of the lenses you mention, but I'm counting my loonies (and selling my gear) to get the 70-200/2.8L IS. It sounds to me as if you should get the 100-400/L IS. I already have the 300/4L IS and extenders, so my long shots are OK. I've used a wide variety of push-pull (pp) zooms and they are actually better than two-touch (tt) in some circumstances: one drawback of pp is that it's easy to mistakenly shift focus as you zoom, but the complimentary advantage is that you don't have to move your hand to intentionally shift focus as you zoom (?).

<I>70-200/2.8 L IS plus Canon 2x Extender II when you need it - which won't be as often

as you think - and don't look back.</i><P>

 

When you do wildlife, you will want to be using the 2X to get to 400 mm

<B><i>extremely</b></i> often, and (although this is hotly debated) I think most users

feel that the 100-400 at 400 is better than the 70-200 + 2X at 400. So if you want to do

wildlife, you'll want the 100-400 or

something else that gets you out that far. For everything else you mention, the 70-200 is

probably more appropriate. In terms of quality, my copy of the 100-400 is quite good

from 100 to about 250 mm or so -- absolutely nothing to complain about, other than not

being f2.8. At 300-400 it's a little soft wide open (but still usable), and improves

considerably by f6.3-f8. <P>

 

So I think the question you need to ask yourself is: how much wildlife photography do I

want to do? If the answer is anything more than "just a little", then I'd suggest the

100-400.

One thing you may want to consider with kids sport game is. With a f5.6 lens, you may be siting on the sideline when the game move inside or play late in the afternoon. You will need good ISO 800-1250 f2.8 to get up from the sideline seat for those cases.

I have had the 70-200 for almost 6 months and had delayed making the purchase due to the expense. However once I pulled the trigger, I have not had one regret. I shoot in similar situations to what you have described and have well pleased. It is a lens you love to go out with.

I went with the 70-200 IS lens and 2X-II extender. Debated or not, I get excellent results and my friend who has the 100-400 and I can not tell any quality differences in our shots (up to any size that we use).

<br><br>

This shot is hand held at 400mm wide open:

 

<img src=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1196861-md.jpg>

<br>

You get the outright speed of the 2.8 lens from 70 to 200 and the reach to 400 with the 2X.

 

YMMV

I use a 70-200/2.8 IS with 20D for taking pics of my kids activities.

Skating rink: ISO 1600 f/2.8 and 125/s (if I'm lucky),

Undercover riding arena: ISO 1600 f/3.5 500/s works very well.

 

Arguably you don't need IS at 500/s but it still helps steady your hand for framing. I use a mono-pod when I can, but more often than not, it is hand held.

A couple of things I'd like to add, for most of my sports shots I find the lens is between 85mm and 135mm and occasionally at 200mm. The 70-200 fits those ranges perfectly.

 

Another thing thats important, especially with indoor activities I noticed someone had mentioned ISO 1600 and lucky to achieve 1/125 shutter speed. Even w/o IS I'm able to hit 1/250 or faster indoors and that comes down to how you setup the camera. I shoot ice hockey in aperture priorty (Av) f/2.8 and I set a custom white balance off the ice. Not using a flash I'm able to freeze the action on the ice from 1/200 to 1/500 sometimes depending on available light and if I use exposure compensation as well.

 

Set a custom white balance by taking a single shot of the ice and set white balance to custom. Then in the 20D menus choose custom white balance/shot and chose the pic of the ice. You can do the same with an 18% grey card but the ice is there already and under the lights. Indoor basketball or volleyball I'd use a grey card on the court before the game if I could.

 

Good luck!

<blokquote>

Another thing thats important, especially with indoor activities I noticed someone had mentioned ISO 1600 and lucky to achieve 1/125 shutter speed. Even w/o IS I'm able to hit 1/250 or faster indoors and that comes down to how you setup the camera. I shoot ice hockey in aperture priorty (Av) f/2.8 and I set a custom white balance off the ice.

</blockquote>

 

Andrew, <P>

 

Your exposure is determined by the light level, aperture, shutter, speed, and ISO. It is not affected by IS or by white balance. IS only affects your ability to hold the camera steady. Preset white balance is useful but not necessary if you shoot RAW and does nothing to exposure. <P>

 

I shoot pictures in dim bars and use ISO 1600/3200 and f/1.8 and am lucky if I get exposures around 1/50 sec (often they are much slower). It doesn't come down to how you set up the camera, it comes down to how much light there is. Ice hockey is fast but in good arenas there is a fair bit of light and they are standing on a huge relector. Your typical high school gynasium is not nearly as well lit. I am sure the poster was shooting wide open - that is not exactly advanced technique - but some venues are dim. <P>

 

Sometimes I will deliberately underexpose to get a faster shutter speed, use positive compensation in the RAW converter, and then selectively apply noise reduction. This is the analog of push processing film except you can do it on a frame by frame basis. <P>

Thanks everyone, your feedback was even more helpful than I had hoped. It was a tough decision but I finally went with the 70-200 after all. I'm sure I'll be happy with it! Thanks again.