70-200 or 100 - 400

wcavanagh

wcavanagh

Messages
995
Edit My Images
No
Ok people, been having a think, and that normally ends up with the credit card getting a hammering.

So at the moment, I do a lot of big cat photography, and I use the 100 - 400L 80% of the time for this.

Now I wondered would the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and a TC offer me a better combo that the 100-400.

I am starting to look at image quality more and more now.

Any thought to help me make up my mind.

Cheers
Will
 
I was always told that if you buy a lens with the intention of using it with a tcon you are buying the wrong lens.If you use the 200-400 part of your lens more,you are better off sticking with the 100-400.If you use the 100-200 more and sometimes need the longer focal length then the 70-200 could be the lens for you.
I use my 70-200 with a tcon quite often but wish I had kept hold of the 100-400.You would probably have to sell the 100-400 and add another £900 ish to it to get the 70-200 MK2.Why not just keep the 100-400 and add the very nice 70-200 F4Lis to your arsenal.

Gary
 
You can take great images with the 100-400mm, what's stopping you is the conditions you're taking those images in and perhaps the camera you're using or at least the settings.

By all accounts the new 70-200mm f2.8 is a fantastic lens, sharper than all its predecessors' but its a £2100 + lens compared to a £1100 lens. The 70-200 ain't a wildlife lens.

Personally it depends what type of wildlife your taking images of, but if I was to pick a lens, then it would be a prime over a zoom any day if you're really looking at image quality.

It very easy just to buy a new lens thinking it will solve the problems, what you need to do is find out why you ain't achieving the results you want. Having the right conditions plays a very large part in achieving the right results
 
The one thing that stops me is low light. I like the zoom as the places I visit have the big cats wondering around, and I feel I would not get the shots I need with a prime. e.g on a viewing platform, when the tiger is running around an enclosure. I just find the zoom dead easy for this. I love the 7D as it gives me that little bit more reach. But 2.8 is tempting, but don't want to go down that route if overall I am not going to gain over the 100 - 400 that I do love, and it helps build the arm mussels too, lol
 
For sure, having the right lens for the job is the solution.

I also had been having similiar thoughts with the 70-200 mkII + 1.4tc vs 300mm F4 (and also the x2tc vs 100-400)

I'm impressed with the reviews of the 70-200mkII and looked on the-digital-picture.com at the ISO crop comparsions. Of course the 70-200mkII with tc's came a close second to both lenses I mentioned IMHO.

However the option of sharp zoom at f2.8, coupled with either/or both teleconvertors in my pocket (even with the drop in IQ and fstops) appeals more to me. Also carrying one lens, filter, and the twist zoom over the push-pull of the 100-400.

Difficult decision as your already own the 100-400 though :thinking:




Good luck with your choice, but I know your gonna order it anyway when you start off 'thinking' :lol:
 
You could get 70-200 f2.8 is mark i and a teleconvertor 1.4x. Would make it f4 I think which is still pretty fast.
 
I think I might do the smart thing, and hire the 70 - 200 and have a play. Do some direct comparative shots between that and the 100 - 400 :)
 
wcavanagh said:
I think I might do the smart thing, and hire the 70 - 200 and have a play. Do some direct comparative shots between that and the 100 - 400 :)
Click to expand...

Which you will HAVE to post up here with 100% crops n a definitive write up on which you think is best. :)
 
Of course, I have booked the lens for the weekend, I am going to PWP so will test both, and also run a more controlled test in the garden too.
 
I have a 100-400 and had a 70-200 f2.8 IS mkI. I sold the 70-200 because I found it a tiny bit too short for aviation photography. Saying that, had I had enough money I would have kept both as the 70-200 is a cracking lens and f2.8 is nice to have.

If you are on a more limited budget is the mkII really worth the extra? :shrug: It sounds like an amazing lens but the mkI wasn't exactly bad either. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top