Canon 70-200 F4 (non-IS) with Canon 100-400mm.

[chinmaya]

I wanted to buy a telephoto (300mm+) for my XTi, I considered Tamron 200-500 and Sigma 150-500 OS.

But eventually leaning towards Canon 100-400mm, as I heard that it has better contrast, IQ. and I am sure

IS is a good feature.

 

Currently I have 70-200 F4 non-IS lens, its only 4months old. I love the lens for its IQ, light-weight

and other good things. But if I am buying Canon 100-400mm there will be huge overlap of focal length

among these 2. I only have an advantage of 30mm with 70-200mm.

 

I wanted to know if some one has owned both lenses (rather I would say 2 lenses with similar focal length range)

and found a good use for both or not. I am asking to decide on keeping or selling 70-200

 

Any views/feedback comments appreciated.

 

Thank you

 

chinmaya

[mrossi]

I have both the 70-200f/4L and the 100-400 IS/L and I don't really consider much overlap between them. For closeup, portrait, even outdoor zoomed landscapes the 70-200 is an excellent lens. For my birding/nature outings I don't take that, I usually keep the 100-400 on the camera the whole time. From my own research, I'd skip the Sigma, it's too slow (some may disagree), but the 100-400 is an excellent excellent lens, I love it.

[neill_farmer2]

If you look at the 35mm FF equivalents the minimum focal lengths on your XTi they are 112mm (70-200) and 160mm (100-400), there is a world of difference between these two so you will be changing from the 100-400 to the 70-200 to access this gap. But yes, at the upper end there is an overlap which can be a bit frustrating because the 100-400 is pretty good in this range also. I find that the overlap isn't all bad, It reduces the need for a lot of lens changing. Secondly the f4 is a different animal to the 100-400. The f4 is light, easy to use and hold all day, the 100-400 is large, heavy and not that easy to use quickly. I would keep both. I would also consider purchasing the 300 f4 L rather than the 100-400, this decision boils down to whether you want the slightly better IQ of the 300 or the versatility and added reach of the of the zoom. FWIW I have an XTi, a 70-200 EX and the more recently the 100-400L and I use the 100-400 much more than the EX but my photography (trains and wildlife) suits the longer lens, yours, if it's more general, might not.

Neill

[mendel_leisk]

I wouldn't worry about "overlap". There are several reasons for it, none a crime. Sometimes a newer, must-have version of a lens comes out, as simple as that. I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS, and am thinking about getting the 70-200 f4.0 IS (that's overlap!), which wasn't available when I got my 2.8. The f4.0 is *half* the weight, and apparently slightly ahead in sharpness (though the 2.8 is pretty sharp). I also have a 24-70, *and* a 24-105, again: lots of overlap. Both have their app's, again weight is a big factor.

 

I'm very reluctant to let go of a lens (read: never sell them). I figure the lens may have fallen out of favour, but either I'll pick it up again, or some family member or friend might have a use for it, down the road.

[ed_k__north_carolina_]

I currently have the 100-400L and I had the 70-200 F4L (until I traded the 70-2200 in for the Tokina 50-135 F2.8). I never had any over lap issues with them.

 

The 70-200 is smaller and lighter and thus more portable.

 

The 100-400 is a lens that commands respect (and maybe a monopod), it's heavier and much longer (especially when zoomed out), but it is wonderful when you need the reach. The 100-400 can't be beat for airshows or anywhere you want to get up close from far away.

 

Ed K.

[JDMvW]

"Commands respect"

 

Hmm... sounds kinda Freudian.

 

You could just put a "sock in it", as they say in a somewhat different sense.

 

;)

[William Michael]

You are looking at this all the wrong way around IMO.

 

You: ``have 70-200 F4 non-IS lens, its only 4months old, you love the lens for its IQ, light-weight and other good things . . .``

 

Now please complete this sentence:

 

``I wanted to buy a telephoto (300mm+) for my XTi, because . . .

 

& I want to do . . .

 

& I want to get . . .

 

and I cannot do these things with what I have.

 

If you can adequately fill in the blanks, then you need to answer / ask:

 

``And the best lens to do all or most of the above is . . .

 

WW

[dan_hall4]

Buy the 100-400 (wonderful lens), sell the 70-200 and put that money towards a 24-105 (amazing lens). Later, throw a 10-22 under it and you have 10-400 mm covered. Works for me on my 40D. Very versatile lens selection in my opinion.

[louie]

I own both, and have for a while. I'll agree that while there is an overlap in focal range, in practical usage, these don't overlap since I never take both lenses out at the same time. As others have noted, the 70-200 f/4.0 is light lens that is very portable, and I use it when I just need a medium range telephoto. If I know I'll be shooting wildlife or have a need to go long, I'll take the 100-400, and just put up with the weight.

 

If you're really worried about overlap, then keep the 70-200 f/4.0 and pick up a 300 f/4.0 or 400 f/5.6.

[harold_motte]

Response to Dan Hall's input. A 10-22; 24-105; and 100-400; Sound like that covers it pretty good.

I have the 24-105 and 70-200; a 35mm overlap.

So, should I sell the 70-200 and replace it with a 100-400?

[phyrpowr]

Chinmaya (and Harold M.)

 

I have the 10-22, 24-105, and 100-400, but also bought a 70-300 IS for lighter touristing and walkaround. While the 24-105 covers about 90% of what I shoot, I like the reach for detail that I can't get closer to, e.g., pretty girls jogging across the road from the coffee shop patio..errr, I mean, architectural details higher up on a building

 

The 100-400 is for me a "dedicated" long range lens, i.e., not something I care to lug around when I only "might" want a long telephoto; your shoulder can get numb fast. If you can afford it, keep that 70-200

 

FWIW, I formerly had the 300/4 IS, and even with 1.4 TC got excellent IQ. Both it and the 100-400, though not having the newest IS technology, lock up like a bank vault when it kicks in

[jnischik]

Anybody thought about just adding the 1.4x teleconverter to the 70-200? On a crop sensor camera you now have a 448mm lens and

you only give up maybe one stop.

 

Just a thought.

[photohns]

Jack, I have been trying to decide whether or not to buy a 1.4x teleconverter for my 70-200 or saving up to buy a 100-400. Alot of difference in price! I just am not sure whether I would want to sell the 70-200 and buy the 100-400 or not. I really like the 70-200.