70-200L f/2.8 IS vs. 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS

Kryptix

Kryptix

Messages
1,730
Edit My Images
Yes
What would you have and why? Pretend you have no telephoto and you're buying one.
 
I am looking for the 70-200L (currently with 200 prime and cheap f/4 tele zoom). The price and the weight are similar and both have IS. 70-200 has slightly better IQ and it is f/2.8. If you need 400mm (shooting wildlife) then the situation is different. For events and portraits 70-200 is better (no good for birds except geese and ducks). It really depends what you need it for.
 
Yeah I know it comes back to that, but in a telephoto I'd like f/2.8 and a zoom range up to 400mm would be nice, as there's been quite a few occasions 200mm hasn't been enough.

I think the 70-200 is more for me, I was just wondering what others thought.
 
The 70-200 and a 1.4x extender, possibly adding the 2x at a later point.
 
ive got a sigma 70-200hsm and a 100-400L, excellent piccy quality on both, but the sigma focus is much faster, which was a bit of a surprise, for length go for the 100-400, for F2.8 for for the 70-200
 
Or, as I always say in threads like this, have a look at the Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 APO OS HSM. It has everything the Canon 100-400L has, almost the same IQ and it's half the price.
 
The 70-200 f2.8 is my main lens (I'm rocking the non IS version) sport, portraits and even some landscapes. Wider apertures aren't only to let more light in, remember that the auto focus is done with the lens wide open, more focus points are activated with f2.8 and faster lenses, on Canon at least.

Having said that I'm going to hire a 400 f5.6 because there are times when the extra length is needed.
 
petris said:
If you want to distroy IQ...
Click to expand...

Don't be so melodramatic. The 2x extender may noticably reduce IQ but it doesn't destroy it.

All depends what focal lengths you use most often. If you're mostly below 200 but sometimes go up to 300-ish and sometimes need up to 400 then a 70-200 f/2.8 with the extenders offers a very flexible solution with f/2.8 up to 200mm, f/4 up to 280mm with negligable IQ reduction and f/5.6 up to 400mm on the occasions you need it.

Yes if you need the 400mm reach a lot then the 100-400 is probably a better bet and will offer better IQ at the far end but you've then seriously compromised yourself at the shorter end if you use that a lot.

The question was asking what we'd choose and personally I'll stick with my recommendation.
 
I've just sold my 70-200/2.8 to get a 100-400 and no regrets. I was finding I was using the 70-200 with a 1.4x most of the time and not really using the wider apertures. So, it was a bit of a no brainer for me. To keep in the 2.8 world for when it is truly useful, I've just got a 200/2.8 prime.
 
It depends on what you're shooting, sadly I'm in no position to afford either, but they're different lenses so it's a bit tricky to compare them! If you REALLY want 400mm, f/2.8 then it's very much possible (click here)!

Personally, I'd quite like both, but if limited to one, and if you only OCCASIONALLY go over the 200mm range, I'd get a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1.4 TC. Having said that, if you NEED 400mm, there aren't many options about.

A compromise would be the 1XX-300mm f/2.8 from Sigma, but I hear it's far from perfect, and it'll set you back a fair bit as well!

Chris
 
70-200 with 1.4x.

I see no reason why i need more than the 280mm that that'd give me. Never been in a situation where i needed more than the 200mm that i have atm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top