Linda S.

Hello! I could have written this email too. I do have the 70-200 and I do have a tripod. I'm also going to be 70 this month and am in excellent health. That being said I don't like to use the tripod but when I try to hand hold the camera and lens, it's starting to get heavy. By heavy I mean while my hands don't shake when I'm not holding something, when I am holding the camera with the lens both hands start shaking. So I have become resigned that when I shoot with my photography group, to bring along a travel tripod and a cable release. It's just the easiest way to get the shots for me without increasing the film speed. Unfortunately, as we get older, something has to give. So I would base my decision on the type of photos, I want to take, what settings I need in order to get the absolute best shots that I am capable of getting, (which aren't that terrific but still...) and then go to the manufacturer's website and add up the weight of the components that I'm interested in having. And then I have to make a choice. Do I want increase the film speed, I do like shooting at 100 200 max... do I want to get a different lens that's lighter, or what? I had to make these choices and perform this process on my recent trip this past summer to Alaska. I asked the participants here which of my lens to take. They told me which lens they would take and showed pictures as well! I listened to them but then I did have to add one more lens that I didn't want to leave home. At the risk of being a downer, we are at that age where it doesn't get better as we get older. The best we can hope for is that it stays the same. Just my two cents worth. I hope it helps.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I feel your pain (literally). At 73 and after a couple of heart attacks, holding a FF body with battery grip and a 3.5 lb lens up for hours at a time for indoor sports (often when a monopod or tripod isn’t feasible) gets to be painful. I know of two answers: move to prime lenses, which are sharper, faster and often MUCH smaller and lighter. They do lack the versatility of a zoom, but sometimes this problem can be partially alleviated by carrying in extra lens or extender in your pocket. The other alternative is to move to or add another smaller format system. As much as I love the performance of FF in low light, high ISO situations, i’m finding that I’m carrying my “little” Fuji crop system more and more for every day shooting.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Stick with the 100-400 Mark II. It's an awesome lens. I've got a 70-200mm Mark II and I've used the 2x teleconverter on it and the results aren't the same as the 100-400. The 100-400 by itself is better.

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

Tamron and Sigma both have new versions of the 100-400. From what I gather they are both good choices.
They may be lighter, and less expensive than the Canon. Google them do a little research and find out.
I own both the Canon 1.4 and the 2x, II extenders. I found them on Craig's list I paid 150 for each one
On your camera the 2x will not autofocus. The 1.4 will. Something else to think about.
I own a f/2.8 70-200 L, it's heavy. I have the 100-400 L also, again it's heavy.
Out of the two the 70-200 is the sharpest.

dandev Loc: Enumclaw, WA

You could try the 70-200 f4.

bweber Loc: Newton, MA

I have a 70 - 200 f4 and the 100 - 400 ll. I use them both on full frame cameras, a 5DSR and a new EOS R. I sold a 70 - 200 2.8 when I purchased the 100 - 400, and bought the 70 - 200 f4 because is is light and easy to handle. I love the 100 - 400. It is very sharp and has very good stabilization. I suggest that you do not need the extender, and it will cause more trouble that it is worth. Remember on a crop sensor camera the 400 mm lens is the equivalent of a 620 mm lens. You will have trouble hand holding that lens without the extender. You wrote that you do not like to use a tripod. If you use the extender you will have to shoot at a very high ISO even in sunlight to utilize a high enough shutter speed to obtain quality images. Even the 200 mm on your camera will be like shooting with a 320 mm lens at that will be hard to hand hold. I suggest you try the 100 - 400 II, the I does not have high quality stabilization. I would buy it unless you feel it is to heavy to carry. In that case I would seriously look at the 70 - 200 f4 is. It is an "L" lens. It is relatively light and very sharp.

gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN

Marg....you might find the EF 100-400 lens is a little heavy to use hand held. I recently sold my Canon EF 100-400 f4.5 lens (3.04lbs) for a Canon EF 70-300 f4 IS II USM lens that weighs 1.56 lbs. I have both a full frame 6D camera and a 60D with a cropped sensor. I find using it on my 60D camera gives me a reach of 480 which is sufficient for my purposes. Good luck with your decision.
/George

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I have both the 300mm f/4L IS USM and the 100-400 II.... and I disagree with the above statement. The 300mm f/4L is nice & sharp, but it is not quite as sharp as the 100-400 II.

The 100-400 II uses a fluorite element... the 300mm (and 400mm f/4) does not. That's probably the differences.

I agree, though, that the 400mm f/5.6 and 300mm f/4 are lighter than the 100-400mm II. That's true. They are both under 3 lb. and the 100-400 II is closer to 3.5 lb.

The biggest problem with the 400mm f/5.6 is that it doesn't have IS. It's going to be difficult to use hand held. You'll need to keep shutter speeds up to around 1/500 minimum and preferably even faster... or use it on a monopod or tripods.

I opted for the 300mm f/4L instead because it does have IS... and I often use it hand held. It's also a little more versatile, having 300mm and 420mm when I pair it up with a Canon 1.4X II teleconverter, and it''s still stabilized. It's not as versatile as the 100-400mm zoom (I almost always paired up the 300mm on one camera with a 70-200mm on a second camera). I would note too that the 300mm f/4 uses an older form of IS. In fact, it is one of the earliest lenses Canon added Image Stabilization to, in the mid-1990s, and has been in continuous production ever since. But it's one of five Canon lenses where the IS needs to be manually turned of if using the lens locked down on a tripod (or in any other way that there is no movement for the IS to correct). This is because when there is no movement, this form of IS will go into sort of a feedback loop where it actually causes movement that will effect images. All the other lenses that have this type of IS have been discontinued (the earlier EF 75-300mm IS USM, original EF 100-400mm "push/pull" zoom, EF 28-135mm IS USM and the original EF 24-105mm). Only the 300mm f/4 remains in production. It's IS is rated for 2 to 3 stops worth of assistance (the 100-400 II's IS is rated for 3 to 4 stops.. and it's the very fast, modern type as being used in all the super telephotos.)

By the time you add a teleconverter to it, the 300mm f/4 is a bit over 3 lb., so not that much lighter than the 100-400 II.

I now rarely use my 300mm f/4 (I actually have two of them, one needs repair). Mostly only when I need the extra stop of its f/4 aperture, versus the f/5.6 of the 100-400mm.

The image below was shot with 300mm f/4 with EF 1.4X II attached, wide open at f/5.6 on Canon 7D (same APS-C size sensor as T4i)...



And this shot was done with the same lens and teleconverter combo on full frame 5D Mark II, in this case stopped down to f/8 & using a monopod...



Yes, the 300mm f/4L IS USM is good sharp lens. But by the time you also get a quality 1.4X teleconverter to use with it the cost and weight are both increased significantly. The lens alone sells for $1350 and the current Canon 1.4X III costs $429... so will total very close to what the 100-400mm is selling for right now. And the 300mm + 1.4X

I haven't had the 100-400 II as long and haven't used it for a lot of wildlife/bird photography yet.... But it's actually as sharp or sharper than the 300mm f/4.... and a lot more versatile. The EF 400mm f/5.6L is probably the sharpest of the three (even though it doesn't use fluorite), and the lightest & most affordable. But lacks IS and is the least versatile.

Compare image quality yourself.

100-400mm II at 400mm versus 300mm f/4L IS USM with 1.4X teleconverter (effectively 420mm f/5.6)...

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=111&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

100-400mm II (at 400mm) versus 400mm f/4...

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=278&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Note: above test images are magnified and were shot with 50MP 5Ds-R, which, of all Canon cameras is about the most demanding of lenses. You can change the camera, if you wish. But I'd recommend looking at tests done with the same or very similar cameras in each case.

Any of these options can work, make excellent images and give you 400mm or 420mm, which is important for birding in particular.

The 400mm f/5.6 is the sharpest, lightest and least expensive option, but unstabilized & more difficult to shoot handheld and not very versatile with the single focal length. You'll likely want a 70-200mm to complement it.

The 300mm f/4L with a quality 1.4X is also very good, a little heavier and more expensive, but a bit more versatile with two focal lengths and a stop larger aperture at 300mm, and with IS. Still, you will probably want a 70-200mm to use along with it.

The 100-400mm II is also very, very good and by far the most versatile (it's largely replaced my use of both 70-200 & 300mm with 1.4X). However, it's the most expensive, largest and heaviest of the options. Except that by replacing two lenses and a teleconverter, the 100-400 II is a cheaper and lighter solution for me.

DrJ

Marge and George: I have the Canon 70-200 f4 L which I got for $599 new and this sale happens every so often at B&H and Adorama. It is a VERY sharp lens. I am particularly impressed by how sharp it is at f4.

For birds, I have my lightweight Olympus OM-D-E-M5 with a Tamron SP 500 f8 mirror lens mounted and ready on a Canon monopod. Equivalent FOV is 1000 mm on this mirrorless and the focus assist enables me to get a critcal focus in <3 seconds. The in body image stabilization on the Olympus EM5 works very well. DrJ

Linda S.

This link just came in my email about the best lens for taking photos of birds. I don't have any expertise in taking bird photos so I can't evaluate it. I just present it for your review. HTH! https://photzy.com/bird-photography-most-popular-lenses-free-quick-guide/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_content=20181205&utm_campaign=emailnewsletter

Linda S.

This link just came in my email about the best lens for taking photos of birds. I don't have any expertise in taking bird photos so I can't evaluate it. I just present it for your review. HTH! https://photzy.com/bird-photography-most-popular-lenses-free-quick-guide/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_content=20181205&utm_campaign=emailnewsletter

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Great info for birders at this link! Well worth downloading and reading.

It also mentions the Tamron 100-400mm and Sigma 100-400mm lenses, which are both well under $1000 and lighter than the Canon, so may be worth consideration.

Neither of them is as sharp throughout the range as the Canon 100-400 II, but they are pretty darned capable lenses none-the-less. They both also are considerably "slower" than the Canon lens.... 2.3 to a full stop through much of their range of focal lengths. While they sound like they would be the same or very close, they actually drop down to a smaller aperture a lot shorter focal length than the Canon. For example, the Canon maintains f/5 up to around 310mm. The smaller/lighter Sigma lens is only f/5 even at 100mm, drops down to f/5.6 at only 112mm and loses another 1/3 stop of light by about 230mm to be f/6.3 through the rest of it's range. The Tamron is slightly brighter, starting out at f/4.5 and f/5 through 180mm, f/5.6 to about 280mm and f/6.3 the rest of the range.

Between the two, I would opt for the Tamron for the additional brightness, plus that it can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring (sold separately and costs something like $129). The Sigma doesn't even have that option. I consider a tripod mounting ring essential on lenses that are 400mm or longer. But by the time the Tamron is fitted with the tripod ring, it's likely going to be pretty close to the weight of the Canon.

Neither the Sigma nor the Tamron use fluorite, like the Canon does... and as a result they both show more chromatic aberration. Neither are quite as close focusing as the Canon, either. The Canon can do .31X magnification, the Sigma .26X and the Tamron .28X.

Detailed reviews of these lenses (and comparisons) can be found here:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-100-400mm-f-4.5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx

That link is to the Tamron review, which is the most recently introduced. There are links within the article to the reviews of the Sigma and the Tamron, as well as some other lenses of this type.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

The 100-400 II is sharpest at 400mm at 300mm it does not spec as sharp, I am not so sure that I would be confident in saying that it is sharper at 300mm than the prime lens, call it a toss up if you care to, I have all three lenses plus the 500 f/4 as well, one thing that I will say is that in my experience the 400 prime is the most amazing of the 4 lenses when the price is considered. Don't get me wrong, I love my 100-400 for a really great and versatile walkaround nature lens, and it is plenty sharp but it is not as sharp as the 400mm prime. For wanting to see feather detail it is a hard lens to beat, I also agree with you that it is a sunny day lens because of the lack of IS it requires fast shutter speeds and is not so suitable for a nature walk through the woods, it is best used on bright days with shutter speeds at 1/800 or above.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The smallest, lightest lens for you to consider is the GREAT Canon 70-300 IS II nano. Next would be the Tamron 100-400. The 70-200 2.8's with 2X are big and heavy - but they can get the job done especially if you need f2.8 for other reasons.

If great reach is a priority, the 400 L prime is what you should be looking at - but it needs a monopod with good technique or high shutter if hand held.

Sell the 75-300.


..

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

Listen to Imagemeister! He knows what works! I have the Tamron 100-400mm primarily because of weight- price was secondary. I know my limitations and anything heavier is not going to work for me unless I use it with tripod and/or window adaption. Anyway, the lens works well. It is a slow lens so better to use it in full or partial sunlight. I wasn't too thrilled with it at first but then I made some camera setting changes and I have had some great images from it. It doesn't do well in high contrast conditions, better to use it without a filter and it needs to be stabilized with a pistol grip or something equable. It's not as cheap as you might expect when you add on the tripod foot and tap in console you are just under 1k. I have never used the tap in console but the foot is soooo worth it. I actually attach my pistol grip to it and the lens becomes very well balanced. It is a fast focus unless there is very little contrast but then that is the way of most lenses. It's worth a look at. I did not go with the Sigma equivalency because there was no tripod foot available for it. Good luck whatever you choose :)

mm