70-200mm or 100-400mm

[aalok_gaitonde]

Hello all,

 

I am a new user here, but not in the world of photography. I would say I am a

budding photographer as of today. [http://www.flickr.com/photos/aalokg/]

 

I use a Canon 400D and a Canon PS S40.

 

I would like to get a telephoto lens for shooting subjects like aircraft/dogs

playing in the park etc etc. Which one may I go for ? All of these sell for

something around 900 pounds.

 

The option are:

 

Canon EF 70-200mm F/4L IS

Canon EF 70-200mm F/2,8L

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6

 

I do not want to buy a TC.

 

Thanks,

Aalok

[shambrick007]

Archives

[matt_elber]

I have a 100-400mm lens, and whilst it is not particularly easy to use handheld, the quality is excellent, the image stabilisation is perfect, and the pictures are razor-sharp. The 70-200mm f2.8 is the one I'd go for, but only if you have a doubler.

[joelh47]

Aalok,

 

I think it depends at least a little on what light you intend to shoot in. If you want to try more low-light photography, then the 70-200 f2.8L would be the best choice. However, it looks like most of your photos are shot in broad daylight, so if it were me, I would go for the extra reach of the 100-400, especially since you say don't want to buy a teleconverter. I do own the 70-200 f4L (non-IS), and it is an excellent lens, but I have been saving towards the 100-400 L lens, which I hope to get next year.

 

Ahh, if only price were no object and you could get both...

 

Joel

[aalok_gaitonde]

Thanks for your reply guys. Yes, light is not a problem here in India :D And I would shoot with these lenses mainly on planned occasions, so the light factor would be taken care of.

 

And I have to admit that I have a bit of a problem with stability(handheld shooting). So would that IS on the 100-400 help or the 2.8 of the 70-200 lens would be better (considering higher shooting speeds)?

 

 

Aalok

[jason_hall4]

All the things you mentioned are outside and mostly well lit. On just that alone the 100-400 would serve you better. I have a 70-200f2.8IS and sold a 100-400 to get it. But that is only because I needed a fast lens for indoor work.

 

If my shooting was to remain mostly outdoors in good light the 100-400 is a really nice lens, only to be beaten by a prime. The 70-200f4IS really does not give you anything over the 100-400 except it is lighter and cheaper. Maybe a little sharper. But for a zoom with the range of the 100-400 it does rather well also.

 

For aircraft(I assume air shows) you will want the 400mm reach. May I suggest the 100-400(based only on the info you provided) and maybe some nice fast primes(85/1.8,50/1.8) for low light, portraits, and such.

 

BTW, none of the zooms do well with a TC. I learned the hard way despite all the folks before that said so first. Nothing like experience.

 

Here are some samples of the 100-400 used at a birthday party at a park. This shot was at 400mm.

 

http://jphotography.phanfare.com/album/386812/566707#imageID=26274844

 

Jason

[jason_hall4]

Well the IS would do you better with that shakey hand. Yes a higher shutter would be nice, but that larger apperture also means swallower DOF, that is good for some portraits and such, but makes sharp focus more difficult on fast movers. In bright sun you find you will not be able to shoot wide open anyway.

 

While I love IS, learning to control that wild hand would be wise. IS is a great tool but not a fix for poor technique.

 

Jason

[mendel_leisk]

aalok, with the 70-200's are you not interested in the IS versions? Just curious. I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and am very happy with it. The IS is very effective and it is very good for rendering your subject sharp, against creamy soft background.

[kent_j]

I don't know if the 70-200 and 100-400 are a good comparison. Like those above, I would recommend the 70-200 2.8 IS model for most situations, but when you need a long lens, you might want to consider the 500/4 if you want to shoot things that move quickly, like airplanes and animals. Like most photographers, I think you'll someday decide that a one lens compromise is too great.

[paullehmann]

I own both now and did a wordy review of the 100-400 on Amazon. Too long to retype, link follows...

 

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B00007GQLS/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

[kgarrison]

I really like the 70-300 IS, I use mine a lot. The AF is fast and responsive and the IS is rock steady.

[aalok_gaitonde]

Thanks Jason for your worthy respose. It was very helpful. For portraits, I have the 50mm f/1.8. Got it as a replacement fot the kit lens. (18-55mm)

 

Mendel, the IS version of the 70-200mm is a bit too costly for me at this stage. Thats why.....

 

So the f/4.5 IS beats the f/2.8 w/o IS ?

With this in mind, I guess the 100-400mm is better.

 

Aalok

[yakim_peled1]

>> I would like to get a telephoto lens for shooting subjects like aircraft/dogs playing in the park etc etc. [...] The option are: Canon EF 70-200mm F/4L IS Canon EF 70-200mm F/2,8L Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6

 

 

IMHO the 70-200/2.8 is a no-brainer for sports. Use high shutter speeds (which is what you normally do in sports) and the lack of IS will not be felt. Also, nothing can match a fast aperture when it comes to isolating your subject from the background.

 

>> I really like the 70-300 IS, I use mine a lot. The AF is fast and responsive

 

I am curious about this remark. One of the main reasons which made me sell it was the sluggish AF speed. Lacking IF, ring-USM, non-rotating front lens element or a fast aperture I wonder how one can be happy with its AF speed.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[matthias_meixner2]

Another thing to consider is weight. If you have to carry around it all day long, the 70-200 F/4 IS might be an option as both the 70-200 F/2.8 and the 100-400 have about twice the weight.