100-400 or 200-400?

Sadlybrokeboy

Sadlybrokeboy

Messages
1,677
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I've got a slight bit of a quandary that I'd appreciate some 'outside' thoughts on....

I do fair bit of both wildlife and plane photography and as a result of that, I've recently reaquired a 100-400 having tried to make use of a 70-200 2.8 and a 2x teleconverter and finding that combo just doesn't work for me.

However, I've very recently been given the option of acquiring a 200-400 and now can't decide whether to stick or twist with the gear.

Has anyone got the 200-400 or had use of one, any particular thoughts on it's use? Is it any good? Better/worse than the 100-400?

I don't want to change for sake of changing, however if there are benefits to be had, I don't want to miss the opportunity!

All thoughts appreciated!

Cheers,

Matt
 
Last edited:
The 200-400 is a totally different beast - it is much larger, heavier and more expensive than the 100-400. It is a superb lens and I would love to own one but it is beyond my budget. The 100-400 can easily be handheld for a days shooting but most would need support (tripod or monopod) if shooting the 200-400 for any length of time.
 
postcardcv said:
The 200-400 is a totally different beast - it is much larger, heavier and more expensive than the 100-400. It is a superb lens and I would love to own one but it is beyond my budget. The 100-400 can easily be handheld for a days shooting but most would need support (tripod or monopod) if shooting the 200-400 for any length of time.
Click to expand...

Thanks - that's something that something that hadn't occurred to me - the weight and that could well be a game changer for me!

Cheers,

Matt
 
Aren't the 200-400 like £10k? It will surely be better quality than the 100-400, but a bit of a beast to slog about and would be better on a tripod and wimblerley or a monopod.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup - that's a bloody good point - had forgotten that! :confused:

I think I'm just going to let it slide - something tells me that this isn't a Canon version of the lens and wires have been crossed somewhere!
 
I've just come back from a trip to Tanzania and Kenya where I was fortunate to have the loan of a 200-560 ("cos that's what it is!!).
My kit therefore was 2x1Dx, 24-70 2.8 and the 200-560.
The great advantage is that I didn't have to change lenses very often, as I hardly used the 24-70, and the 2-560 was absolutely superb in terms of image quality and ease of use with a bean bag, however it's 2 main disadvantages are firstly the cost and secondly the weight, unless I'd been vehicle based I'd not have considered taking it, I'd have made do with a different combo.
I'm waiting the replacement 100-400 scheduled for later this year I hope, with that and a 7D mk2 financially and weight wise it makes a lot more sense!!

George.
 
Cheers George - will stick with what I have I think - appreciate the info.

Hope you had a good trip! :)

Matt
 
Matt, when you say you have the chance of a 2-400, was it 2nd hand?..never seen one for sale!

George
 
Yes it was 2nd hand and I didn't think too much about the new price hadn't looked in all honesty.

But the more I think about I reckon I've got my wires crossed and it's not a canon lens or something!
 
The Nikon 200-400 you can pick up for around sub £3k used, but the Canon EF 200-400mm f4 L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens is about £10k and not seen any on the used market yet. Have a look at the Tamron 150-600mm or the Canon 100-400 which is a well trodden path for wildlife shooters.
 
Laudrup agree now that I've looked you're right about the prices.

Will be sticking with my 100-400 until the lottery win comes in!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top