70-200 F4 vs. 100-400 F4 L IS in relation to XT -> 5D Swap

[chris.sager]

I have read a million posts about the 70-200 comparisons and also about the ups

and downs of the 100-400. There seem to be markedly fewer direct comparisons

between the 70-200F4 and the 100-400 L.</br></br>

 

Here's what I have now:</br></br>

 

Rebel XT + Grip </br>

17-40 F4L</br>

Sigma 28 F1.8</br>

Canon 50 1.8</br>

70-200 F4L (non-IS)</br>

580 EX II</br>

Elan 7N</br></br></br>

 

 

I'm considering selling the XT, grip & 70-200 F4 to finance the purchase of a

5D, 24-105 and possibly the 100-400.</br></br>

 

The whole exchange would cost roughly $2700 and would include a free Pro9000

printer after rebate.</br></br>

 

Whats everyone think about this idea?</br></br>

 

Its a bunch of money, but would serisouly increase the quality and flexibility

of my kit.</br></br>

 

Thanks,</br></br>

 

Christian Sager

[images_in_light_north_west]

I think getting rid of the 70-200 f4 could be a mistake

[mark_chappell]

Within the overlapping part of the zoom range of these two lenses, the 100-400 is quite

good but the 70-200/4 IS, and the older 'plain' 70-200/4, are a bit better (this judgment is

based on my copies). The optically weak part of the 100-400's range is roughly 300-400

mm wide open, and if you stop down a bit it's a lot better.

 

Another consideration is that the 100-400 is huge by comparison and much more awkward

to handle. I always use the 70-200/4 IS, unless I'm quite sure I need more reach. The

100-400 at the long end is better than a 70-200 + extenders.

[mike_earussi1]

Depends on what type of photography you tend to do. My own preferences would be to upgrade to the 70-200 f2.8 L IS, instead of the 100-400, and just put a 1.4x or 2x on it for more reach. That way you have both f2.8 and a tele when you need them.

[DickArnold]

I have both a 70-200 2.8L and the 100-400. In my mind they have entirely different uses. I habitually carry the 100-400 when I know I will the light to use it. The IS is pretty effective. I carry the 70-200 2.8 when the light is not good. 70-200 was purchased in 1997. When I worked for a paper and did weddings that lens was like my right arm. My left arm was a 28-70 2.8L. For a long time I used a 2X Canon extender on the 70-200. The 100-400 is much better than that combination. The 1.4 Extender works better. In fact the 2x has received a lot of abuse on PN. The choices are yours but I sure would like to have a 70-200 F4 if I had to carry a lens a lot. The 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 weigh within three ounces of one another and have the same length in the bag but the 100-400 push-pull extends to twice that length. The choices are yours.

[William Michael]

Do you NEED the printer?

 

 

Is the rebel XT AFU?

 

 

Do you NEED more than 320mm reach (relative 135 format)?

 

 

Without going chewing up reams of virtual paper with the rationale: provided that the Rebel is working OK, I see a much a more flexible, lighter kit with faster individual component parts and less cash outlay as:

 

 

Rebel XT + Grip; 17-40 F4L; Sigma 28 F1.8; Canon 50 1.8; 70-200 F4L (non-IS); 580 EX II; Elan 7N

 

 

buy: 5D Body only (and possibly x1.4MkII Tele Extender.)

 

 

or

 

 

buy: 5D body only and sell 70 to 200F4 and buy 70 to 200F2.8L IS (and possibly the x1.4MkII Tele Extender).

 

 

 

I think the 100 to 400 zoom is a specialist lens on any of the three formats: certainly it forms part of the kit; but it is too large, too slow and too heavy to be considered as a `replacement part for a base kit` IMO, which I think is what you are attempting to do.

 

 

 

Just in case the `rebate` and `free printer` were swaying the objective outcomes of `what flexibilities in my kit do need?`.

 

 

WW

[chris.sager]

I think the above suggestions on the tele end are all quite good. Thanks guys.

 

I think that if i was to purchase a 5D and not purchase a normal zoom, that i might be a bit worse off. I like the 17-40 on my XT a whole lot, but find it to be for only particular situations on the 7N, not even close to a general purpose lens.

 

Maybe I should rethink things a bit and shoot for the 5D + 17-40 + 24-105 + 70-200 F2.8IS + 1.4X and 2X Extenders. How much worse is the 70-200 w/ 2X than the 100-400?

 

I'd like to have more reach to do some casual shooting at baseball games and some bird photography. My effective 320MM reach isnt cutting it for those purposes at this time.

 

The 24-105 is only going to cost me $720 above the price of the 5D and therefor seems to make sense even if i decided to sell it later.

[peterlyons]

I think you'd be very pleased with the body upgrade. I did the same and would never wish

to go back. There are lots of improvements from the XT to the 5D. With my 5D I really

love having the 17-40. Not as my walk-around lens--for that I use the 24-105--but it's

great for architecture, landscapes, and subjects where a super wide view works well.

 

I'll also vouch for the 100-400. I love that lens, and use it more than any other--but then,

I shoot outdoor sports, especially sailing.

 

I'm selling my Pixma Pro 9000. I outsource all my printing now, and don't like fussing

with getting colors right on an inkjet.

[fotograf]

Christian, what 100-400 f/4 L IS lens are you referring to? Canon's is a variable aperture at f/4.5-5.6 not a constant f/4 unless you made a typo.

[DickArnold]

The 2X, that I own, is not that good. You can get acceptable sports pictures with it if your use is not critical. It would work fine for newspaper resolution. I would spend my money on a 1.4. You only lose one stop rather than two and from everything I have read it is quite a bit sharper. I have a Tamron 1.4 that makes quite acceptable pictures and, as opposed to the Canon 1.4, it AFs on the 100-400 and allows the right amount of light to the sensor. It however, does not report the right lens opening to the camera. That does not affect the image. It is not optically as good as the Canon, I don't think. I really like the IS on my 100-400 and I have gotten some very good pictures at shorter focal lengths with it. 400 is quite good at F8 and higher. Much better tha the 70-200 with 2X.

[lester_wareham]

"How much worse is the 70-200 w/ 2X than the 100-400?"

 

See for yourself

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=9&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=9&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3

 

The 2X tends to be a lot more useful with sharp primes but the 70-200 is not too bad.

[william_bray1]

I have a canon 70 200 f/4 IS. So I have read, optically this is the best one of the 70 200 range, providing you can do with out the 2.8.Also I'm lead to believe the 100 400 only has 1 stop IS, and to get the best IQ it is best to stop it down to f/8 at 400mm.From my experience with the f/4 there is no difference in IQ if you stop it down and IQ remains through out the focal range. I tried the Kenko 2x tc and the IQ was very good indeed. Check out the image, this is straight from the camera shot in jpeg at f/4, no sharpening. Also the Kenko 2x retained auto focus it was slow but canon tc doesn?t even offer that at f/4.So if you take all that into account you can shoot with the 100 400 at 400mm at f/5.6 with one stop IS and it's best to soot at f/8. Or you can shoot with the 70 200 f/4 at 400mm f/8, because of loosing 2 stops with the tc, but with a 4 stop IS. The only disadvantage I can see is slowness of AF, and this combo is not ideal for fast moving subjects in any thing else then bright conditions but the 100 400 only offers 1 stop faster. And some people might say the IQ isn't acceptable, I'm happy with it, but my photography has a broad range and considering the price difference of getting a TC or a 100 400 lens I tend not to be that critical of the IQ when using the TC.And with the f/4 I take it every where because the weight isn't a problem.If you buy the 100 400 you're interested in the longer focal range so may be a option is the 300 is prime with the 2x TC and keep the 70 200 f/4. I don't specialize in birds or serious wildlife if I were to go down that road I?ll buy a prime lens.