70-200 f/2.8L IS or the 100-400

[aalok_gaitonde]

Hello,

 

Either the 70-200 f/2.8L IS or the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS would be my first

telephoto for my 400D. I mainly shoot airplanes/dogs/birds. I would love the

bokeh the 2.8 would provide, whereas on the other hand I would love to have the

longer reach of the 100-400. The drawbacks which matter to me are the shorter

focal length of the 70-200 and the dust problems with the 100-400.

 

I am totally confused. :( If the dust isnt a big problem with the 100-400, I

will go ahead with the it. (I live in India, lots of dust around).

 

What would you guys recommend ?

 

Regards,

Aalok

[bryantan]

If you're worried about the dust issue, try the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter. That way you'll have a 140-400 f/5.6 when you need it. It's not quite as convenient as the 100-400, but you get the option of fast glass when you need it.

[geoff_foale]

The general opinion seems to be that dust problems with the 100-400 are exagerated. More to the point is which lens would be better for your needs as they are designed for totally different purposes.

 

If you need a faster lens, eg for moving subjects in poor light then go for the 70-200. If you really need 400 then it has to be the 100-400. But just to confuse you even more, have you considered using an extender (when required) with the 70-200 or an inbetween lens like the 70-300. Alternatively, if you can afford it, the 70-200 plus a larger prime like the 300 or 400, both of which will take a converter when required.

 

These are all excellent lenses with IS, except the 400 prime. Probably the best I can suggest is that I think 200 would be too short for planes and birds and I consider 300 to be the absolute minimum here. A lot of wildlife photographers use the 100-400. But do you have other lenses to cover the shorter distances?

[nhut-nguyen]

getting the images you want is much much more important than worrying about little things like dust.

 

For airplanes (I believe you meant airshow) and birds, go with the 100-400, you can never have enough focal length for bird and airplane.

[mendel_leisk]

Are you aware of the different zoom mechanisms of these 2 lens: the 70-200 being fixed length, vs the 100-400 changing length, by push-pull method. Check out The-Digital-Picture site for reviews and pros/cons.

 

The 70-200 has less "compromises" with it's fixed length and fast/constant max aperture. It's a superior lens, but with limitted range, likely not enough reach for your needs.

 

Currently, the 100-400 is the *only* 400mm Canon offers without a stratospheric price tag *and* with IS. If the Canon 400mm f5.6 prime was offered with IS it would really open up the choices.

 

I am using the 70-200 with a full frame body, where it is even shorter in reach. I happy with it's range and bokey. But, it really depends on your subject. Even on a crop body, it will fall short for wild bird shots, air shows, etc.

[peterlyons]

My 100-400 is my single most used lens, and I love it. I've shot easiliy 70,000 exposures

with it. I don't think you'll find dust to be any more a problem than it already is.

[zafar1]

I have a five year old 100-400 lens and I have no problem with dust. I agree that the problem with dust is exaggerated.

 

There is a reason for push-pull design. It is the only way to let you change zoom quickly and control the extent of zoom. All circular zooms either have cramped zoom in the higher focal length (for example a rotation of 1-2cm gets you from 200-300, too small to give you a fine control) or will require longer/multiple twist to achieve this. Push-pull mechanism allows you to instantly go from 100 to 400 while holding the lens.

 

As for 70-200, I have also ordered it but it has different applications. People using it with 2x extender have consistently found results softer. If you want to shoot tele-photo and you can afford 100-400 lens, go for it, there is no equivalent of it in the industry.

My second option will be 70-300 IS lens for tele-photo. Given the right composition, both 100-400 and 70-300 give good bokeh.

 

Zafar

[aalok_gaitonde]

Yes, I am aware of the reviews, pros/cons and the push pull mechanism of the 100-400. Even I read about the dust problem being exaggerated.

 

I think I ll go with the 100-400.

 

Regards,

Aalok

[sitemistic]

I agree with the others. While the 70-200 2.8 IS is an outstanding lens (probably my most

used lens on my 5D), you need all the reach you can get for the subjects you shoot. I think

the 100-400 is your best choice.

[anthony_thornborough1]

In a high dust environment the problem with foreign object ingress such as dust and grit is likely to be less with a push-me-pull-you 100-400 stuck on the body for the day than the changing of lens and converter with the 70-200, and it certainly would give you excellent 'reach' for avian photography, and more than you need - that is, probably optimum coverage at less than all-out - for aviation.

 

Like the proverbial clothes shopper, you need to 'try them on' and see what fits best and makes you feel most comfortable.

[savas_kyprianides]

I rented them both along with a 1.4 TC for one weekend and enjoyed them for their

strengths. I had one lens in a small backpack while having the other mounted and swapped

now and then. They were both very useful within their respective ranges and I wished I could

afford to get the both of them. If I were to buy one soon, it would be the 2.8 as it would be

immediately useful and live on the camera while the 100-400, for me, would be a luxury for

occasional long reach subjects.

[DickArnold]

I have both lenses. The 70-200 2.8 does not have IS which is not impactive shooting airplanes. They are for two different purposes in my mind. I have a 2X converter. I don't use it as the pictures of the 100-400 are sharper. The 2.8 is important for sports in dim light. The 100-400L is a bright light lens without flash. See below. AT 400.

[linh dinh]

I found the tension ring/push pull zoom combo hard to get used to, and definitely slow.The 70-200 L lens is a much more versatile lens, especially with being able to combine this lens with 1.4 and 2x extenders.

[mark_chappell]

<I>If you're worried about the dust issue, try the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter. </I><P>

 

As Anthony says, changing lenses -- or adding or subtracting teleconverters -- is much more

likely to lead to a dusty sensor than the push-pull zoom action of the 100-400.