Canon 70-200 F4L (with 1.4x extender) vs. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L
Jun 19, 2016 10:44:34 #
Howdy folks,
Looking at these two lens setups. Couple of examples available used locally. I ended up with this comparison, as they both can cover the same focal lengths, and are at about the same price point. Both lenses are the mark 1 versions, and the 70 to 200 is non IS. I have a line on a Mk III extender.
I believe the 70-200 to be a sharper lens overall, but you have to use the extender to get into the upper range of the 100-400. I do know some degradation is part of the trade off. The 100 to 400 is expected to be sharper at the long end, at the cost of a stop.
Any other thoughts or points to consider from folks out there who have used or owned either setup would be welcome.
Looking at these two lens setups. Couple of examples available used locally. I ended up with this comparison, as they both can cover the same focal lengths, and are at about the same price point. Both lenses are the mark 1 versions, and the 70 to 200 is non IS. I have a line on a Mk III extender.
I believe the 70-200 to be a sharper lens overall, but you have to use the extender to get into the upper range of the 100-400. I do know some degradation is part of the trade off. The 100 to 400 is expected to be sharper at the long end, at the cost of a stop.
Any other thoughts or points to consider from folks out there who have used or owned either setup would be welcome.
Jun 19, 2016 11:07:27 #
A couple of points:
Using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 will only go to 280mm vs the 100-400's 400mm
Again using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 f4 becomes an f5.6, so no "one stop cost" for the 100-400
Finally, what do you shoot mostly? Would the 70-200 be on your camera most of the time, with just occasional use of the extender, or are you interested in wildlife and BIF where the extra length of the 100-400 would be useful?
Using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 will only go to 280mm vs the 100-400's 400mm
Again using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 f4 becomes an f5.6, so no "one stop cost" for the 100-400
Finally, what do you shoot mostly? Would the 70-200 be on your camera most of the time, with just occasional use of the extender, or are you interested in wildlife and BIF where the extra length of the 100-400 would be useful?
Jun 19, 2016 11:11:01 #
Joe, I own and use both.
But for what I do, I'll be honest, I rarely use the 70-200! It's just too short for me. I will add, my 70-200 is the one without IS, so what I do love about it is that it's VERY small and light so it NEVER leaves my camera bag. It goes everywhere my camera goes so I do always have a slightly longer lens with me. BUT, if I'm planning to shoot something and need telephoto I always use the 100-400.
Both lenses are extremely sharp and capable.
I passed on the 2.8 because it's the same size as the 100-400 with only half the reach. I spent the added cost of the 2.8 on primes that are faster than 2.8 for when I really do need speed.
But both lense you mention are a bit useless indoors, so if you plan on indoor use, you will probably need the 2.8 which is reach-wise ok indoors but just too short outdoors for me.
My 100-400 is the older mkl. I probably won't replace it with the mkll as again I'd rather spend that extra money on other very useful lenses that I don't already have or a new camera. Just my 2 cents!!
SS
But for what I do, I'll be honest, I rarely use the 70-200! It's just too short for me. I will add, my 70-200 is the one without IS, so what I do love about it is that it's VERY small and light so it NEVER leaves my camera bag. It goes everywhere my camera goes so I do always have a slightly longer lens with me. BUT, if I'm planning to shoot something and need telephoto I always use the 100-400.
Both lenses are extremely sharp and capable.
I passed on the 2.8 because it's the same size as the 100-400 with only half the reach. I spent the added cost of the 2.8 on primes that are faster than 2.8 for when I really do need speed.
But both lense you mention are a bit useless indoors, so if you plan on indoor use, you will probably need the 2.8 which is reach-wise ok indoors but just too short outdoors for me.
My 100-400 is the older mkl. I probably won't replace it with the mkll as again I'd rather spend that extra money on other very useful lenses that I don't already have or a new camera. Just my 2 cents!!
SS
Jun 19, 2016 11:16:41 #
TriX wrote:
A couple of points:
Using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 will only go to 280mm vs the 100-400's 400mm
Again using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 f4 becomes an f5.6, so no "one stop cost" for the 100-400
Finally, what do you shoot mostly? Would the 70-200 be on your camera most of the time, with just occasional use of the extender, or are you interested in wildlife and BIF where the extra length of the 100-400 would be useful?
Using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 will only go to 280mm vs the 100-400's 400mm
Again using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 f4 becomes an f5.6, so no "one stop cost" for the 100-400
Finally, what do you shoot mostly? Would the 70-200 be on your camera most of the time, with just occasional use of the extender, or are you interested in wildlife and BIF where the extra length of the 100-400 would be useful?
Stage performances, conferences, and a range of other subjects. Good point on the length, and that the extender itself takes a stop away.
Jun 19, 2016 11:21:53 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Joe, I own and use both. br But for what I do, I'... (show quote)
Thanks for the response, and it's good to hear from someone with experiences of both lenses. I am leaning towards the 100-400 as well, and what you are saying here is just what I might have expected. I often shoot across an auditorium, so I think that may just tip the scales to the 100-400. I do know that the MKII of this lens changed the pump action to a rotary zoom control. Possibly a reason some used MkI lenses are showing up.
Jun 19, 2016 11:37:39 #
jmizera wrote:
Stage performances, conferences, and a range of other subjects. Good point on the length, and that the extender itself takes a stop away.
If you mean indoor performances and conferences, you may find either combination slow in terms of minimum f-stop. If you can afford it, consider the 70-200 f2.8L. You'll appreciate the extra speed, and I can attest that it works well with the canon 1.4EX extender. It's not a light lens, but it's a workhorse that you find in many pro's bags. I use mine for everything from portraits to weddings to indoor sports, but when it comes to wildlife, outdoor sports, or BIF, I reach for the 100-400...
Jun 19, 2016 12:44:00 #
TriX wrote:
If you mean indoor performances and conferences, you may find either combination slow in terms of minimum f-stop. If you can afford it, consider the 70-200 f2.8L. You'll appreciate the extra speed, and I can attest that it works well with the canon 1.4EX extender. It's not a light lens, but it's a workhorse that you find in many pro's bags. I use mine for everything from portraits to weddings to indoor sports, but when it comes to wildlife, outdoor sports, or BIF, I reach for the 100-400...
I would LOVE to own the 70 to 200 2.8. I've shot with that lens before, and it is wonderful. Lovely bokeh. It's out of my budget unfortunately. While I will use whatever I end up with on my 5DII now and then, the primary use will be actually be on a C100 video camera. You can shoot at very high ISO with minimal noise with this thing. Used my 24 to 105 F4L many times covering stage performances, and it is definitely fast enough.
Jun 19, 2016 13:49:17 #
twr25
Loc: New Jersey
I have the Canon 70-200 2.8, great lens, super sharp; but, when I need a lot more focal length I use the Tamron 150-600mm for outdoor sports and nature shots. Great lens for about $1000.00. Sigma also makes this lens and a newer sport version (more $) that requires focal tweaking for your shooting style.
Jun 19, 2016 14:11:40 #
twr25 wrote:
I have the Canon 70-200 2.8, great lens, super sharp; but, when I need a lot more focal length I use the Tamron 150-600mm for outdoor sports and nature shots. Great lens for about $1000.00. Sigma also makes this lens and a newer sport version (more $) that requires focal tweaking for your shooting style.
I've owned both Sigma and Tamron lenses. I do feel Canon L is best in class, but Sigma does a really nice job for the money. I have an EFS-S Sigma lense that was half the price of the Canon counterpart, and I was hard pressed to tell the difference. Other than feel and appearance. I should give the Sigma a look. It sells new for what the Canon 100-400 is selling for used.
The Tamrons I've owned were also EF-S lenses. The tele I had seemed a bit soft. One thing is for sure, the stabilization does not compare to Canon's or Sigma's. Particularly when shooting video.
Thanks
Jun 20, 2016 06:13:45 #
Another consideration is focus speed. Looks like you're not shooting sports, but the 100-400 II has very fast focus speed. I've not used the teleconverter but doesn't that hamper focus speed?
Jun 20, 2016 08:06:37 #
I have both mk II's. Two different tools, the 70-200 is awesome for portraits and low light while the 100-400 rocks for sports, wildlife and telephoto.
Both do nicely but the 70-200 slows it's focus down with extenders, very considerably with the Canon 2x III.
Both do nicely but the 70-200 slows it's focus down with extenders, very considerably with the Canon 2x III.
Jun 20, 2016 09:23:38 #
Grnway wrote:
Another consideration is focus speed. Looks like you're not shooting sports, but the 100-400 II has very fast focus speed. I've not used the teleconverter but doesn't that hamper focus speed?
Rarely shoot sports, but once in a great while. Focus speed is still an important consideration. Roger confirms that the extender puts a hurt on focus speed. Very good to know.
Really leaning towards the 100 to 400 for now, and maybe a 70 to 200L one of these days.
Jun 20, 2016 11:42:17 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
TriX wrote:
A couple of points:
Using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 will only go to 280mm vs the 100-400's 400mm
Again using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 f4 becomes an f5.6, so no "one stop cost" for the 100-400
Finally, what do you shoot mostly? Would the 70-200 be on your camera most of the time, with just occasional use of the extender, or are you interested in wildlife and BIF where the extra length of the 100-400 would be useful?
Using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 will only go to 280mm vs the 100-400's 400mm
Again using the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 f4 becomes an f5.6, so no "one stop cost" for the 100-400
Finally, what do you shoot mostly? Would the 70-200 be on your camera most of the time, with just occasional use of the extender, or are you interested in wildlife and BIF where the extra length of the 100-400 would be useful?
There has been no discussion of the 70-200 f/4 IS. Owning one I can say the absolutely excellent IS makes a very significant difference in the number of keepers I get. I can't imagine using this lens regularly handheld without IS. I own half a dozen Canon lenses with IS, but none of them works as well as the system on this lens.
Jun 20, 2016 11:53:23 #
mwsilvers wrote:
There has been no discussion of the 70-200 f/4 IS. Owning one I can say the absolutely excellent IS makes a very significant difference in the number of keepers I get. I can't imagine using this lens regularly handheld without IS. I own half a dozen Canon lenses with IS, but none of them works as well as the system on this lens.
Good point!
Jun 20, 2016 16:06:35 #
jmizera wrote:
Howdy folks, br br Looking at these two lens setu... (show quote)
jmizera, This question is a great question for UHH. Yes, I have and use both lenses plus the 1.4X MkIII. I originally had the 70-200 f/2.8 but found it too heavy & bulky and didn't need that speed for the type of photography I do. I returned it and got the f/4 IS version and find it's one of my favorite lenses. I have the 100-400 MkII and love using it for wildlife, with and without the 1.4X MkIII TC. Using the 7D MkII, I find the converter works extremely well as you can see from the attached image taken yesterday of a Burrowing Owl. I've never used the 1.4X TC on the 70-200 lens as I've never had a reason to do so. I find no reason you wouldn't be a happy camper using the TC on the 100-400. Best, J. Goffe
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.