70-200/4 & 300/4 vs. 70-200/2.8 IS & 1.4XTC - thoughts?

[bruce johnson]

I can't decide between a 70-200/4L and a 300/4L IS combo or a 70-

200/2.8L IS and a 1.4X TC. My current lenses in this range are: 28-

135 IS, 100/2.8 macro and 100-300 5.6L and I'd like a faster, better

AF, non-rotating front element lens(es) to cover the range of the

100-300/5.6L. IS would also be a great asset.

 

70-200/4 & 300/4: $1720 wt: 1895g filters: 67mm & 77mm

70-200/2.8 IS & 1.4XTC: $1930 wt: 1690g filter: 77mm

 

Advantage to combo 1 is cheaper (throw in the 1.4X TC and the prices

would be the same (w/in $10!)). Also if attempting to travel

lightly, I could leave the 300/4 at home and just take the light

(705g) 70-200/4 with me. True 300mm length and ability to get to

420mm with 1.4 TC if needed for relatively little more money. If I

really need a 2.8 aperture, I could always use my 100/2.8 macro...

 

Advantage to combo 2 is 2.8 aperture and the newest generation IS

over the whole range of focal lengths. Also don't have to deal with

that stupid 67mm filter size (do I buy new filters so I can use the

lens hood ($$$$$!) or a step-up ring and use my 72mm filters and no

hood (ugh!). If I went with this combo, I'd keep the 100-300/5.6L

for backpacking if the weight of the 70-200/2.8L was really an issue.

 

I really can't decide between these two combos. I primarily shoot

landscape photography and this is always tripod mounted and usually

stopped down, so for this I'd say combo #1 is ideal. However, I've

now got a 17 month old son which I chase around with my 100/2.8 or

50/1.8 rather than my 28-135 IS because of the wider apertures;

however, I do miss the security of the IS when shooting handheld. I

think that combo #2 makes more sense for this because of the IS and

documenting a growing family with candid photos is difficult with a

tripod. Although I derive great satisfaction from my landscape

photography, in the long run, I think more people will be pleased by

great photos documenting our family's growth and activities.

 

Can anyone shed any further enlightenment on this choice? Any

personal experiences that would sway you one way or the other? Any

other important factors for me to consider when making my choice?

[ruffstep_.]

Have you looked at the 100-400IS? This lense covers your range and more and is a great compliment to the 28-135.

 

I know this lense is sometimes badmouthed by the test pattern shooters of this world, but its real world performance is fantastic to my eye. Nobody has ever looked at my 6.5" x 10" cibachromes and remarked on the 'lack' of edge sharpness. The push pull zoom was a real pain in the ass - for about 1 second, and the lense hood has never fallen off. Anyway.... give one a look before making your decision?

[chip]

Hi Bruce,

 

IMO, the best long term choice is the EF 70-200 2.8L IS and EF 1.4X. It could also be argued that the 70-200 4L and 300 4L IS offers more F/L flexibility but I would say that they take up a lot more room in the bag and you won't leave the 300 4L IS at home. With an f/2.8 aperture to 200mm and the option of IS with mode 2 operation for ALL shooting within this F/L range you have too big an advantage to ignore. Granted the extra weight of the EF 300 4L IS could be left behind but then you have no IS even for 300mm. But I don't think you'll be doing much backpacking for a while with a young child in the house once reality sets in, LOL!

 

Cheers and congrats on the son!

[witolda_maruszewska]

I'd second checking out the 100-400L IS. That way you get best of both worlds i.e. you get the IS feature that you like and you only need carry one lens around. A lot of people knock it, but in the real world, it is a cracking bit of glass to own and use.

 

OK, it is only f5.6 at the long end but you can always crank up the ISO if you're shooting digital or use a good quality 400 ISO film if you're shooting film. At the short end, it is f4.5 which is more than enough for most uses. If you are planning on sticking it on a tripod most times, then not having f2.8 shouldn't matter. AF is OK on a D60 but much better on an EOS 5.

 

In terms of weight, it is heavy - but then most lenses of this type are - but probably handles better than something that's constant f2.8. The 100-400L is my main lens (use it about 70% of the time to shoot motorsports) and I've gotten used to lugging it around all day with me.

 

I love it. Meets my needs perfectly.

[peter_mendelson]

I am in a similar position. I had an 80-200L 2.8 and loved it for shooting photos of my baby daughter (mainly outside), and jumped on the Dell deal for the 70-200L 2.8 IS (who knows if and when I will ever get it though). In truth, I really doubt that I will use my big, heavy zoom in low light indoors (I will probably use my 50mm 1.8 or 17-40L f/4 with flash), so maybe the slower 100-400L will be sufficient. I was worried about the fact that the 17-40L was f4 when I bought it, but since I mainly use it outside it has been great and I haven't noticed it being a problem at all.

 

I am concerned a bit that the nice bokeh I got with the 2.8 80-200L would be missing, but I have seen shots taken with the 100-400L that still had nice background blur.

 

If anyone can comment on the relative sizes of these lenses and how easy they are to carry around that would be helpful.

 

-Peter M

[witolda_maruszewska]

The background blur of the 100-400 is great, especially wide open at 400mm i.e. f5.6 - prefer it to the bokeh of the 28-70 at 70mm & f2.8. I use it like this for candid portraits of race drivers to wonderful effect. Have attached a recent example.<div></div>

[jimvanson]

I don't have anything really good to say about the 100-400 IS I owned (past tense).<P>It was very overpriced when I purchased it, too slow at the short end, mush at the long end and a bloody beast to hold (extended it seemed to be about 2 feet long with all it's weight at the end).<P>Maybe I had a bad example, maybe it's because I shot film with it and expected to make 8x12's who's sharpness were up to my standards...yes 8x12 were possiable...but they just didn't cut it (for me). I swapped the 100-400 IS for a 300 f4L IS...that is a great lens!<P>

So all I'd like to say is try to beg, borrow or rent a 100-400 IS before you purchase one. Shoot a half dozen rolls of film with it...then view the resulting 8X prints (machine 4x6's will not tell the story).<P>I wish I'd done that because I'd never have bought the example I ended up with.

[jay_.]

Bruce, you didn't say what you're shooting. If it's digital, then stop reading here because it won't matter which lens combination use use from an image quality standpoint. If you're shooting film, then I can tell you from experience that the 70-200/2.8L-IS with any combination of EF1.4x (I or II) and EF2X-II will be the superior performer. As soon as I saw what that lens can do with the 2X-II I sold my 100-400IS.

[digitmstr]

I believe Luminous Landscape reviewed all the lenses you mention. Look it up and you'll see the results side by side.

[ivanskavinsky]

Bruce,

 

70-200 + 1.4x every time! If you're doing a lot of walking then the weight and space

saving will be significant. But much more importantly, it is simply one of the sharpest

lens I've ever used.

 

Add to that:

 

Most of my work is in low to no light ( I live in the UK!) and I frequently use it wide

open at, frankly silly, shutter speeds and it gives me pictures I couldn't have

previously dreamed of getting before IS.

 

I am not a Canon Rep, honest guv.

 

Hope that helps your decision mate.

 

Ivan<div></div>

[bruce johnson]

Thanks for the great responses so far everyone. As for the film/digital question, I currently shoot film (Velvia 50/100, Provia 100F/400F and the odd roll of XP2 or NPH400) but will switch to digital as soon as the 1DS or equivalent can be had for about $4K. (Digital EOS 3 anyone?).

 

As for the 100-400, sorry guys but I have already ruled that out. I've tried one and didn't care for the push/pull zoom or it's balance. (Don't like the push/pull of the 100-300/5.6L as it is and this is a much smaller/lighter lens). Kind of hoping for wider apertures too, I consider f/4 to be the limit for apertures and even then it's limiting. Why larger apertures? Shallow DOF for sure, but also the brighter image in the viewfinder and shallow DOF of the image in the viewfinder are a great assist in ensuring proper focussing. Also, I do most of my landscape in low light conditions and I can tell you the 5.6 of the 100-300 definately doesn't cut it for me. Final reason is for higher shutter speeds for sports photos etc. So thanks for the suggestions, but I'll not be getting a 100-400L.

 

Great comments so far. Keep them coming if you have anything else to add.

[bellavance]

Jay,

 

Are you saying that a 70-200/2.8L IS with a Canon 2X TC is sharper than a 100-400L IS?

 

Pierre

[brian_potts]

How often do you plan on shooting beyond 300? I own the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, but if I thought that I would shoot at 400 somewhat frequently, I wouldn't go this way. I would choose the 300 f/4. If you predominately feel that you would shoot below 200, and sometimes go up to 300 it is an easy choice the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is the way to go. f/2.8 is a wonderful thing that I would personally be very frustrated if I didn't have. I think with a 17 month old and knowing what is ahead for you in the future, you will probably be very frustrated without the f/2.8 as well. You end up in a lot of low light situations with kids.

 

As a side note, I also have the 100-400, and I wouldn't compare the 70-200 f/2.8L IS with a 2x TC to the 100-400. If I want a zoom in this range, I will always go for the 100-400.

[yakim_peled1]

<P>If you're thinking about 2X to get to 400mm then the 100-400 is <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml">optically better</a> than the 70-200/2.8 + 2X. From your two combos I'd certainly go for the 70-200/2.8 + 1.4X. You get 3 stops of IS from 70mm to 300mm.</P>

 

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[jackflesher]

I had a 100-400 and sold it as soon as I got my 70-200/2.8 IS and 2xII and compared them head-to-head. Like Jay, my 70-200+2x combo was sharper than my 100-400 and I MUCH preferred the ergos on the 70-200.

 

That being said, I then acquired a 300/4 IS. It was so sharp, I found my 70-200/2.8 lacking a bit everywhere... Not to mention that the 300/4 with the 1.4xII remained stunningly sharp. Yes it does degrade a bit with the 2xII on it, but is still quite usable as a 600/8 IS lens.

 

Now that I had the 300, I never used an extender on my 70-200/2.8 IS any more and frankly, due to its weight I found myself leaving that behemouth behind most of the time. Hence I sold it and bought the 70-200/4 as my "travel" zoom. Because it is so much lighter in weight, the 70-200/4 gets brought along most of the time. Many folks claim the 70-200/4 is sharper than the 70-200/2.8. I found this to be true, but only to a very slight degree, but certainly not enough difference to choose one over the other. One thing that rarely gets mentioned about the 70-200/4 is that it does show some vignetting at f4, while the 70-200/2.8 IS shows very little -- even wide open. And yes, I miss f2.8 on occasion and I definitely miss IS -- BUT the lighter weight makes up for it as the lens actually finds its way into my camera bag and gets used where the 2.8 did not.

 

Hope this helps...

[jackflesher]

FWIW, here is a shot taken with the 300/4 plus the 2xII. This shot is hand-held with IS on, 1/100th of a second wide open. this was taken with my 1Ds and was not cropped so you are seeing the full effect of the lens (effective 600/8). I was approximately 18 feet (5.5 M) away form the bird, and he is about 10" (25 cm) tall. With this arrangement, my 1Ds allows center point AF only and I locked that onto the quail's eyeball. <P>

 

<img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/data//3165/6545Quailweb2.jpg"> <P>

[bruce johnson]

Well Jack, thanks for the contrary (to most other postings) point of view. I tend to lean towards the 2.8, but then think of exactly the points you raised. I can see myself thinking the same as you. If only there was a f4 version with IS (Hello Canon?). I think if IS weren't part of the equation, I'd get the two f/4 lenses, but that IS is such a help when shooting handheld in lower light. I like the focal range of 70-200 and would think that this would be my most used lens, so that's why this decision is so difficult.

 

As for renting before buying, unfortunately the only lens in this range I can rent around here is the older 80-210(?)/2.8 which I've already rented. It's handling was much better than the 100-400 I've borrowed, but it's a couple generations old now. I'm sure todays 70-200 offerings are even better.

[jackflesher]

Well, there is possibly one other option... Have you considered going with primes all the way? For about the same money as the 70-200/4 you could get the 135/2 -- and the 135/2 is a STUNNING lens optically! No it does not have IS, but I have never really felt the need in that lens. As a HUGE plus it is very sharp wide open at f2 and gets to stunning at f2.8. And let's talk shallow DOF :) But FWIW, it is not an overly impressive performer with either converter :(

 

Just another thought...

[whayne_padden]

Bruce, I agonized over this for months. I also considered 100-400 as well. In the end I went for the 70-200 f/4L + 300 f/4L IS combo. This set up only weigh a bit more than a lone 70-200 f/2.8L IS and only cost a bit more too. For me 200 was never going to be long enough and since I wanted to do a lot of shooting at 300mm + I decided a 300 f/4L IS was the best option, and with a 1.4x TC is have a fantastic 420 f/5.6L IS. I have now had the combo for 4 months and have not found it a burden at all. I would not change my decision despite knowing how good the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is.

 

If I was not that interested in 200mm + that often I probably would have gone for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS alone, but wildlife photography is too important to me, so I didn't want to be using a 2x TC all the time (despite now knowing this lens can still give very good results with one).