Canon 70-200 f4L vs 100-300 5.6L vs 100-400L

[25asa]

I see a great price at Vistek for the Canon 70-200 f4L. I just got a 17-40L

and if I got the second lens- I qualify for the double rebate program going on

in Canada. Basically the two lenses together would cost almost $1600 Canadian

including the rebate and taxes. But I already have the 100-300L lens and its

f5.6 which isn't far off from the 70-200 f4. Is the f4 lens really a major

improvement in quality? 1 stop in light doesn't seem like much, especially if

I was using the lens for weddings. I know weddings are more useful with the

f2.8 lenses, but they are also double the price. If I went that route I would

wait another year or so before buying.

 

That said a third option would be the 100-400L lens which I'd also have to

wait a year or two for. But it has the range I like and has IS which would

compensate for being slower in low light. But I also hear its not as sharp as

the other 70-200 lenses.

 

Would I be happy with the quality and f4 aperture of the 70-200?

[leopoldstotch]

Are you talking about the $729 demo model 70-200 at Vistek, or the $799 new? I think both will qualify you for a rebate. <a href="http://www.vistek.ca/deals/details.aspx?sku=164709_21291347&mkt=clearance">Here's the link to the demo one</a>

[William Michael]

Scott

 

I read your bio and it seems to me you know the answer already but just like most of us are going through the should I shouldnt I process.

 

From a technical approach [assume you have a x1.6 sensor body] the 17mm to 40m would be a great workhorse for weddings.

 

My personal choice for weddings would be minimum F2.8 lenses; but I did a lot of Available Light shots in a wedding session.

 

If you already have 100mm - 300mm and that is serving you fine for your wedding work then let it be. If however you NEED a faster aperture over this zoom range, for your weddings or other photography, then do not stuff around looking at the 70 to 200 F4 because it is on special or there is a deal going, get a price on the 70 to 200 F2.8.

 

Bottom line: it is not a bargin of you do not need, want it, or worse will not use it much.

 

Try the 100 to 400 before you buy. I did for several hours and did not buy one; key reasons not sharp enough for my liking after about 300mm zoom; too slow [aperture]; did not like push pull system; not as good as 300mm prime with teleconverter attached.

 

I respect others liking the 100 to 400, it is just I did not.

 

Hope this helps Regards WW

[25asa]

The lens is on sale for $769 new. Then you get the rebate on top of that. I used my 100-300L lens for a wedding recently and found I really had to jack up the shutter speed to get the shot. Its also slow to focus, so there any new lens will be an improvement. I would consider the f4 lens if I knew it would work with wedding shots or portraits indoors. Its also compact enough to take on trips, a thing that is swaying me from the larger f2.8 lenses. Each lens has something I like about it, which is making me hard to chose which one to go with. The f4 has the price and size I like. The f2.8 is not quite as sharp, but would be better in low light. Same with IS version. Then the 100-400 has the reach I like and would keep me from buying Tamrons 200-500 lens. Im trying to basically find an excuse to not buy the f4 lens at this time. Has anyone shot weddings with the f4 lens? If so was it sufficient? I really wish Canon would make a 100-300 f4 USM lens. At least I could go to 300 there.

[25asa]

Oh to add I use both film and digital. The bodies I have are an Elan 7, 1N, and a Rebel XTi. My plan is to go fullframe digital in the future.

[25asa]

Correction- with the 100-300 I had to jack up the ISO as the shutter speeds were quite low for f5.6. Some shots ended up blurred, but suprisingly not as many as I expected would be blurred. Those were outdoors in the shade. If the wedding was indoors with available light, I dont know if the f4 would do it. I dont do a lot of weddings, so its not cast in stone I must have the f2.8 IS lens. Most of my shots are either portraits (of which I use a 50 a lot) and landscapes.

[William Michael]

Scott

 

With the added information I cannot mount an arguement for you not to buy the 70 to 200 F4, except to say I personally prefer, a faster lens.

 

From your last post it seems you are woriied that the 200 to 300 range will be lacking for your wedding work; Crikey - on a x1.6 body If you really need 200 to 300 surely it would only be for a few shots or from the back of a really long church, could not you move in a bit closer for those few shots.

 

Another option is the 70 to 200 F4 and get a 1.4x converter, that will give you a 280mm F5.6.

 

Re your other comment I am not convinced that the 70 to 200 F4 is appreciably [read practically for the purposes of 11x14 prints] sharper than the F2.8 version.

 

Also, contrary to many opinions I have read I can carry my 2.8 around all day at sports venues, it is not that heavy or bulky and I am old and retired from pro work.

 

Good luck with the decision WW

[25asa]

I guess another option would be to buy the f2.8 version, IS or not, and keep the 100-300 for trips. The 100-300 is quite sharp even at 300, something I haven't heard with the 100-400 lens. On your comment on using a 300mm lens with weddings- keep in mind I plan on staying with full frame cameras. The XTi is only a stop gap. When I did that outdoor wedding this past summer- I was pretty much at 300 for many shots. This was on my film body.

[William Michael]

Scott

 

Refering to your comments about weddings in your correction: On this I can speak with authority and experience.

 

I have personally done over 1500 weddings, on location we would use 645 and 35mm and in the studio 6x7 or 5x4.

 

Location for a wedding:

 

2x 645 bodies and lenses were 55mm F2.8; 2x 80mm F2.8; 150mm F4.0 and 210mm F4.0

 

3 x FF 35mm bodies two with F2.8 zooms ranging from extra wide to 135mm and the following primes: 28 F2; 45mm F2; 55mm F1.8 and 85mm F1.4.

 

 

Now I know that sounds over the top to some but lets get things in perspective.

 

If you are serious about covering any weddings professionally and using Available Light at weddings you must, IMO, have at least the follwoing (relative to FF 35mm bodies):

 

1. at least 2 bodies

 

2. at least 2 pro flash sets

 

3. at least 1 fast zoom [F2.8] covering moderate wide to portrait tele (28mm to 90mm ish).

 

4. at least one very fast [F1.4 ish] normal lens [50mm] and one very fast portrait lens [85mm]

 

5. a fast [f2.8] zoom [85mm to 135 ish] or an equivalent prime 135mm or 200mm.

 

6. A sturdy tripod, or monopod and know how to use it.

 

7. Lots of trial runs.

 

Regards WW

[25asa]

Well I dont do wedding or engagement shoots professionally normally. I usually get asked to do them on short notice. I actually work in a lab which is my main job. But having used the 100-300- I know its not ideal for any sort of wedding indoors or out. If I was doing this as my main income, I would probably up the bar to the equipment you site. But I'll take your suggestion on getting the f2.8 version. It will set apart enough of a difference from using the 100-300. I just want to be prepared for the next wedding when that may be. My next lens from the 17-40 is the Canon 50L which has been ordered and will be there when those become available. It was put on a layaway, which meant I don't have to pick it up right away. Which means I could get the telephoto zoom if I did choose the f4 version. Thanks for your comments. It helped me stick with the f2.8 which I was originally going to get, had the sale on the f4 not showed its head. Its hard to be a sub $1000 L lens if it would turn out to be what I could use.

[25asa]

Correction- Its hard to beat a sub $1000 L lens.

 

Not long ago that lens was $999 here.

[William Michael]

Scott

 

No problem I sincerely hope my comments were helpful, but I think I was really only a sounding board, as I said at first I think you knew the answers it was just a tasty deal got in the way.

 

I have fallen for a couple of those too. But thats experience and all good fun. Geezze its only money and we can always find a use for an extra lens somehow!

 

All the best

WW

[ed_skibeki]

Vistek has a great price on something? THAT is news.

[ronald_smith2]

I had the older EF 100-300mm f/5.6 L, great optically but the noisy AFD motor is not welcome at weddings. You'll find there is a quite a difference between f/4 and f/5.6, enough that you'll find the old girl a burden more than a benefit. The 70-200mm f/4 L is about the same weight but has IF and filters do not rotate. It handles better since it's a two-touch zoomer. I find it a tad crisper than the old 100-300, as well.

 

The EF 100-400mm IS L still has great appeal to me after all these years, it actually has come down in price to the point where it's workable to buy.

[yakim_peled1]

>> 1 stop in light doesn't seem like much, especially if I was using the lens for weddings.

 

1 stop in light is double the light coming to the sensor. It also allows you higher shutter speeds. This is especially important if you are using the lens for weddings.

 

>> I know weddings are more useful with the f2.8 lenses, but they are also double the price.

 

 

If you are going pro, you need to go all the way. You owe it to your customers.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[eddie_chan4]

Scott, please read the "extra fine" prints on the rebate form. I think we can get the double rebate value when we purchase two different kinds of product. i.e. A lense + a camera, a lense + a grip, a flash + a grip, etc. We can't get the double rebate by purchasing two lenses.

[yakim_peled1]

>> We can't get the double rebate by purchasing two lenses.

 

Yes you can, as long as these are two different lenses.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[eddie_chan4]

Sorry, my mistake. Thank Yakim for the correction.