Canon 70-200 2.8L IS vs 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS

[atlanta]

I have finally saved enough money and am looking to purchase one of

the folowing lenses for my Canon 300D. Either the Canon 70-200 2.8L

IS or the 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS.

 

I will mostly use the lens for outdoor/nature (sunsets), family

photo's and sporting events.

 

thanks in advance for your time and assistance..

Zach

[citizensmith1664875108]

They are very different lenses, that should make it easier for you.

 

The 70-200 is 1.5 to 2 stops faster than the 100-400. Do you often take photos in low light or indoors?

 

The 100-400 has twice the range of the 70-200, and on a 300D it'll be a 160-640 (vs 110-320). That's a damn long lens. If you're into (small) wildlife it'd certainly be a lot better.

 

Optically the 100-400 is great, but the 70-200 is better.

[citizensmith1664875108]

Oh, and if it was me, I'd be getting the 70-200 f/4. Optically just as good, between the two on speed, the 110-320 would be fine for me (I've a RebelD too) and realistically, the others would be too damn heavy for me to often want to carry around. A lens that big would just spend too much time in my closet. :)

[John Crowe]

I have not researched alot about these 2 lenses but my initial impression is that the 100-400 is probably huge and not the sort of lens you want to carry around on a regular basis. People complain about the f2.8 zoom for size but at least its easily portable by comparison. I think you will get much more use out of the 70-200 and later on if you get more into sports then a 2x extender will perform reasonably well with the f2.8 giving you 140-400 f5.6 plus digital crop.

 

I know zooms are extremely flexible but I can't help but beat the drum for primes. For the same price as the 70-200 IS you could get 85mm f1.8, 200mm f2.8 L, 1.4x, and 2x or 135mm f2 L instead of the 200mm f2.8. Good luck!

[barmijo]

These are both GREAT lenses! However, they are LARGE and HEAVY. I own them both and use them frequently but never for simple family shots.

 

The 100-400 is perfect for soccer and baseball. In soccer you can just about fill the frame with an adult at the opposite end of the field and in baseball you can get good shots of the oufield from the dugout. The only dissadvantage is that with the focal multiplier on the 300D you can't zoom out far enough if the action comes your way. Make sure you have room to back up occassionaly when shooting.

 

The 70-200 is good when you don't need to capture action too far away. For instance I use it when photographing baseball for batters and the infield, but if the action moves to the opposite outfield I can't zoom in close enough. IMHO the image quality is superior to that of the 100-400 IS, but when you need the reach . . .

 

Again, neither of these are lenses you'll leave on your camera and walk around with.

[linden_l]

Not sure if either of the lens mentioned would be too heavy for the 300D body. 70-200mm f4 with either 1.4x or 2x TC would be lighter and cheaper. Of course, no IS. :( Maybe Canon will roll out a 70-200mm f4 IS at PMA, just my wishful thinking...

[patkane]

You'll probably adjust your method of holding the camera if you're used to small, short lenses. It may balance strangely compared to a heavier body like an EOS 1D, but the battery pack with two batteries adds heft to the body and I'd highly recommend them.

[primoz]

I would probably go with 70-200/2.8 and 2x converter. I have 70-200/2.8 Sigma and most of time 2x converter do it's job fine. For other times... 400/2.8 do the job, but who wants to carry that beast around most of time? 100-400L is not really that much better then 70-200 with converter so it didn't make much sense for me.<br>

And as someone mentioned 70-200/4 is definitely lighter and smaller, but with 2x converter you can't really do anything. With 300D/10D you lose AF, you get 140-400/8 lens and if you are not really shooting outside on sunny day with lot of snow around then you can forget shooting anything it's not still.

[marcus_erne]

Both lenses are fairly similar in size and weight!

 

The 70-200mm is the faster and sharper one, whereas the 100-400mm comes into the game for wildlife.

I went for the 100-400mm as wildlife plays a significant role in my photography. If I would exclude that, I would certainly go for the 70-200mm f/4 version, because it is as sharp as its bigger brother, but lighter, smaller and cheaper.

There is no "IS", but I wouldn't worry then for the price vs. performance...

[witolda_maruszewska]

If you are shooting outdoor sports as your main subject, then the 100-400L IS is the lens to get as it is probably more flexible than the 70-200. I use my 100-400 to shoot motorsports and it performs really well in all sorts of conditions. In poor light, you can crank up the ISO rating on your camera

 

I've also used it to shoot sunsets, but have found it to be prone to flare when not using filters and shooting directly into the sun. As for portraits, it is brilliant for candids and distance shots taken at 400mm - the bokeh and detail are superb.

 

The 100-400 is a large and heavy lens (like all pro telephotos), but it isn't *THAT* large and heavy; I'd say the 70-200 2.8 is heftier. My 100-400 spends about 70% of shooting time on my camera and I guess I've gotten used to carrying it around - twelve hours every other weekend (near enough) at race circuits has given me enough practice! :)

 

Either way, you probably will find yourself needing a monopod.

[atlanta]

Thanks for all of your input.

I appreciate your time.

Zach

[jim_doty]

Zach:

<p>

I have the 100-400 L and the pre-IS 70-200 f/2.8L. For all practical purposes, the lenses are pretty close in size and weight so you might as well consider them the same to carry around. That should not be a factor in your decision.

<p>

The 100-400 is sharper at 400 than the 70-200 with a 2X teleconverter. If I am going long, I carry the 100-400.

<p>

If I don't need the longer focal lengths, I carry the 70-200 since it is sharper. I should say that used properly, the 100-400 is sharp, but the 70-200 is sharper, especially at smaller apertures (f/11-f/16).

<p>

The 70-200 loses a bit of sharpness when used with the 1.4X teleconverter, but it is still a good, sharp, useable combo giving you 98-280mm at f/4.

<p>

I am disappointed with the results when the 70-200 is used with the 2X.

<p>

I suppose I carry the 100-400 a little more often than the 70-200, especially if I do not have a specific subject in mind. It is THE choice for wildlife.

<p>

I really like the 70-200 for portraits, even though most folks would use a prime lens. I also prefer it for landscapes at less then 300mm in focal length.

<p>

The choice is partly a matter of faster apertures and very high sharpness on the one hand (70-200) and longer focal lengths and reasonable sharpness on the other (100-400).

<p>

A key question is how often you would need the 300-400mm focal length. If this is really important to you, I would suggest the 100-400. If not, get the 70-200 with a 1.4X teleconverter.

<p>

Good luck on your choice.

<p>

Jim

[anthony kohn]

Jim,

 

<p>I agree that the 70-200/2.8 is not the sharpest lens in the world when coupled with the 2x, but I still believe it gives very acceptable results. At 5.6 (ie wide open), it is a little softer than my 24-85, which I would class as the lowest acceptable sharpness (although that level is slowly increasing - darn L lenses). By the time it reaches f8 is better than the 24-85, and by f10 it is very sharp.

 

<p>That doesn't mean that I think it is as good as the 100-400IS, but it is still very useful. The 100-400 is better than the 24-85 when wide open and at the long end (probably about f8 of the 70-200 + 2x), and then it stays a bit sharper than the smaller zoom and TC for all other apertures. Never quite up to the 70-200 without IS, but very good non-the less.

 

<p><b>Now for the OP</b>, I believe that this is a choice between reach or aperture. From what you have stated are you goals, I would believe that aperture would be more important. You have stated that you want to shoot sunsets, which indicates lower light, and unless you want to sillouhette every subject the 2.8 may come in handy. Also, for family photos, particularly if it involves fast moving kids, the 2.8 is very handy. It lets you shoot indoors, without flash (assuming a decent window), and also lets you blur the background for more pleasing portraits. I have found that I have never missed not having 400 when shooting people (except when I try to annoy my girlfriend by taking photos of her when she is a hundred metres away :-)

 

<p> For sports, I used to shoot outdoor sports (women's field hockey) with a 70-200/4. I would have been perfectly happy keeping that lens for hockey, and perhaps adding a 1.4x, however my GF wanted to play indoor, and as such I needed the 2.8. However, this is probably the one area that the 100-400 is 'better'. The 400mm reach of the push-pull lens would be nice, and the aperture is not that bad, for daylight matches. For night matches, I have to use ISO1600 at 2.8 and 1/200-1/320, so the f5.6 is not acceptable. However, when shooting the f4 in daylight, only once did I have to switch to ISO 800, and that was at dusk on an overcast day.

 

<p>Good luck with your decision.