**** lens? EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L or EF70-200 f/2.8L

[ppuga]

Hello!

I'm looking to getting some new lens in the next months but I have some questions, and I'm really don't know what to buy. :Ponders:

First i was looking to get the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=162616&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation) but then I see the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=234444&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation).

in the 100-400 I have more zoom, but in the 70-200 I have more light. I will primarly be shooting cars, rallys, races, etc. Thats why I first wanted a long lens like the 100-400. But this year i will be driving, not only taking pictures so may be the 400 is too much, and for a little more money I get a 70-200 F/2.8L

And may i could find more uses to the 70-200 than the 100-400, what do you think?

And what do you think about the 70-200 f/2.8 with a teleconverter?

Now, there are two 70-200

1) EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM for $1700usd
2) EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM for $1100usd

Do the IS worth the $600usd difference? between both lenses?

Do you recommend me to get the one without the IS and with that money to get a 2x II Extender EF autofocus (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=220457&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation)?

What would you do? :Ponders:

my actual equipment is:
Canon EOS 20D with kit lens (18-55mm)
EF 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM (but everytime I use it = err99, that's why I'm looking for an upgrade)
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

[Sonsey]

I'm not sure the 100-400L IS would be the best lens for you as it really needs good light to get the best from it, but saying that I notice your in Mexico so if the vast majority of your photography is done in the glorious Mexican sunshine it could work well for you.

However, if light is an issue at times then I'd say a faster lens would probably be the way to go and the 70-200L IS f/2.8 would be an excellent choice, IS is most benifical with non-moving items but if you prefer to shoot handheld it would definately give you great results once you'd perfected your panning technique.

If you think 200mm won't give you enough reach then adding a 1.4x t-con shouldn't affect picture quality too badly and should still be fast enough for your needs (a still usable f/4). If it were me I would also be considering a Sigma 120-300 EX f/2.8. It's both sharp and fast and also has the benifit of a good zoom range for motorsport, it's only real let down is no IS but if you don't mind carrying a monopod with you it could be your best bet.

[SammyC]

Make sure they have the IS that supports panning, some don't IIRC.
:)

[CriPPle]

For taking motorsports with a 70-200 F2.8 I don't think IS is all that nessicary, as long as you have good panning technique you will still get great shots.

I personally use the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and have never been bothered by the lack of IS, of course if money is no problem then get the IS lens.

[ppuga]

So the IS is usefull when you are shooting still objects hand held?

I think i prefer to carry a monopod or tripod than paying $600usd more for that.

Today I wil get the prices for these lenses here in Mexico, but sometimes is cheaper to make a trip to US and buy there, than get those here.

For you working with Sigma and/or Tamron what do you think about those brands?

[dod]

I've got the 100-400 but if I was buying again I'd go for the 70-200 F2.8 non IS. The IS takes a fraction of a second to kick in. For what I enjoy most that fraction of a second is enough for the guys to be out of sight. I switched it off yesterday and didn't notice the difference.

Edit: I'm not sure if I'd go for the Canon or Sigma, the sigma does get some good write ups.

[Joe T]

For the same purposes as you, I went for the Sigma 120-300 2.8. I'm loving it so far, but I have only used it properly once (only had it a month or so, and its not motor racing season yet).

[CriPPle]

I really like the Sigma, gives consistantly nice sharp pics. If you want to see some sample shots with this lens have a look at my gallery all the bike pics were taken with it.

I bought it after reading a review on the net somewhere comparing it to the Canon 70-200 F2.8L, I personally could not tell the difference between the shots so felt the extra money was not really worth it.

Works out pretty cheap as well I got mine off ebay from HK, all in it was £450

[SeanBoyce]

Hello ppuga, I have both Cannon 100- 400 & 70-200 F-2.8 and a 2X extender. I love the 70-200 F-2.8. As you probably know, you will louse a couple of F stops with the Extender. The 100-400 is a little heavy for holding all day.I love both of these Lenses but for different reasons. Whatever you bye, it cheaper in States.Enjoy your Trip, Sean

[ppuga]

Thanks Pals, today I went to a store and see the 70-200 f/2.8, I think that will be my first choice. May be in the future I will get the 100-400. Now, I just have to think where to buy it.

Because here (mexico) is very very expensive.

In the states it is $1100 USD here in Mexico it worth almost $1800USD, so doesn't worth it. I preffer to spend that extra on the trip to get it or in the 2x extender and still have money there jeje

Thanks all for your comments!