hmmm, 70-200L or a 100-400L

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok so good chance I'm getting another free lens from work but what to get.

Either the 70-200L f/4 IS
or the 100-400L IS

Now obviously the 100-400 has 200mm more focal range but what about the IQ at the 100-200 range, does the 70-200 beat it? Thats the range I'm more likely to use.

I have currently

70-300 IS
85mm 1.8
100mm 2.8L macro

obviously there is a little overlap there and if I got the 100-400L I would probably sell the 70-300, but if I got the 70-200 I'd probably keep it.

Both are a similar price, what to do?

EDIT - also suggested in this thread was the 70-200 2.8 without IS, do you think this has better IQ than the f/4? or is the IS better to have?
 
Peter-T said:
Another free lens?? What job do you do??
Click to expand...

lol, i make content for education and any images we put in them need a perpetual license forever. so teachers can reuse them, you can imagine what that costs from a stock photography site.

so its much more cost effective to buy equipment and take them ourselves because all our content is free to the teacher so it doesnt generate any revenue
 
Go for the 70-200 but try to get them to get the f2.8 non is version sameish price as a 100-400 but will be miles better
 
Ziploc said:
Go for the 70-200 but try to get them to get the f2.8 non is version sameish price as a 100-400 but will be miles better
Click to expand...

so you're saying the 70-200 2.8 non IS is better IQ wise than the 70-200 f/4.

Is it a case of 2.8 is more useful than and image stabilizer or is the IQ just better in the lens?
 
Horses for courses I suppose but I couldn't do without IS, I just love the way I can take pictures without shake. Some pictures I would never have been able to shoot.
 
For IQ the 70-200 f4 IS hands down over the 100-400 and its half the weight if that's a consideration for you. Obviously the 100-400 is better at 200-400 so if you need that range that's the clear choice.
 
grotty said:
For IQ the 70-200 f4 IS hands down over the 100-400 and its half the weight if that's a consideration for you. Obviously the 100-400 is better at 200-400 so if you need that range that's the clear choice.
Click to expand...

ok, thanks for the post, so you vote the f/4 with IS over the 2.8 without IS?
 
If you don't need 2.8 then yes, the f4 IS is a fantastic lens and it also features environmental seals whereas the 2.8 non IS does not.
 
Depends if you really need a focal length of 400mm.
Wildlife is the main use for these type of lenses and as grotty said, unless you really need f/2.8 for low light conditions, the 70-200 f4 IS a cracking lens and very sharp.
 
yeah, I just did a search on here and seems the overall opinion seems to be the f4 IS over the 2.8 without IS, mainly due to weight and sharpness. I'm using a 7d so I get good high ISO performance and to be honest I do usually shoot at f4 on my tamron 17-50 2.8 so maybe the f4 IS is the one for me
 
The advantage of the f2.8 over the f4 is it take the extenders better. I have a 100-400 and 70-200 f4. I tend to use the 70-200 more than the 100-400 even with a 1.4x converter. Matt Sayles last few posts in the motorsports section will show what can be got from the 100-400, as thats my lens. I have tried the 70-200 f2.8 on a 2x converter and found it to be as good as the 100-400 except for flexability of zoom. But it was in good light.
 
for me the flexibility of the 100-400 wins that competition every time.
 
No big deal, you're covered by your 85.

Either way you can ditch that 70-300 :gag:
 
joescrivens said:
because of the extra 100mm you mean? what about the loss of 30mm at the short end?
Click to expand...

If you're buying that lens you're generally buying it for the extra length. The loss of 30mm at the short end isn't normally an issue. Similarly, if you're using a 70-200 with 1.4X you're looking at a 98-280 so in theory you're only losing 2mm on the short end and gaining 120mm on the long.

Yes, you lose a stop of light on some of the range but never a deal breaker, for me anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top