Quality comparison, 70-200L IS against 100-400L IS

C

coldpenguin

Messages
2,196
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wondering, is there any /major/ benefit in image quality, over using the 70-200L IS against the 100-400L IS?
Any other benefits apart from weight?

I already have 70mm covered with the 28-135.
 
Well apart from the obvious remark that the 100 - 400 will be remarkably better than the 70 - 200 at anything over 200mm :)

I've seen some excellent shots from the 100-400 but also some inconsistency with some examples much better than others. The 70-200 seems better in this respect. Of course it's only a personal opinion, I'll be interested to see other viewpoints.

cheers
 
Which 70-200mm IS? Which focal range (Are we talking 70-200 + convertor or...?)

Give us some more info...
 
Ok, thanks.
Maybe I should state what I am thinking. I am at the stage where the original lenses I purchased with my kit, I would like to improve on. I am seeing the benefit of having faster lenses.
I originally had the 18-55, 28-135 IS and 70-300 IS
Last year I purchased the 100-400 IS L, for the longer reach, and I have purchased the 17-55 IS 2.8 for better quality over the 18-55 kit (from a 400d).
So I have been thinking for a while, that the weak area now is 55-100mm.
Today, walking around PC World (where else would you find dishwashers and camera lenses), my wife spotted the 70-200 ISL 2.8 and asked about it.
I sometimes take the 70-300 IS out to events where the 100-400 L IS is just going to be too bulky. I guess what I am asking is would the 70-200 be a complete replacement for the 70-300, and give better quality than the 100-400 (making me want to use this lens less)

Just seen Richards message.
I think it was the 2.8 variant of the Canon 70-200 (assumed the L made it obvious it was Canon, but forgot there were two aperture values).
I do have a cheapish ?kenko? extender, which I rarely use. The occasions that I do use it, are for extra reach on the 100-400, not on my other lenses
 
Last edited:
I would say it would be close as I was in the same situation last year and decided on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, then blew the money on something else entirely.

The 100-400L is a quite slow and I figured the 70-200 is more versitle, as with a 1.4x T/C converter you get 280mm at f/4 and no real loss of quality.

However, if you need to reach the 400mm mark the 100-400 is the best option (or a 300 f/4L IS + 1.4x T/C) as a 2x T/C on the 70-200 will really deminish the quality of the lens.

It will all depend on what you are looking to shoot.
 
I'll second martyp above, in that it would help to know what you shoot. Do you need fast lenses or is less bulk and weight more important? and so on...

I went the prime route though. Lighter, faster, better IQ than zooms, despite what others would have you believe. Obviously NOT as versatile.
 
If you find the 100-400 bulky, then you need to think again, because both of the IS variants are heavier and bigger, although not by much.

I'd stay with the 100-400 unless you were thinking about the MkII version.
 
If you want focal lengths over 300mm, the 100-400 without question. (unless you can budget for the new MKII 70-200 and a 2x converter (which makes the quality more comparable))

If you could do with just 280mm of the 70-200 with a converter, it's extra speed and sharpness would make it a better choice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top