Substituting the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.4 L IS II for the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8
Nov 25, 2020 14:25:57 #
HankR
Loc: So. East Florida
Is it unreasonable to substitute the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.4 L IS II for the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II?. My kit is all Canon, EOS Mark 5D IV, EF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS II, and EF 70-200 f/2.8mm (I do not own the EF 100-400mm, yet) and usually carry both lenses when photo hunting including Family, vacations, on-foot & bicycle jaunts around SE Florida. I’ve been shooting since High School, am approaching 70, and I do not for see an EOS R camera in my future. The 28-70 lens is wonderful as is the 100-400, but I would have to sell the 28-70 to get the 100-400. There is a 1.25ft difference in close focusing distance (100-400 is closer), increase of 0.6Lb in carry weight, and very different aperture ranges particularly in low light situations. What am I missing and why am I asking the UHH community? Because there is always someone who is wiser and a different perspective can be very enlightening.
Nov 25, 2020 14:53:29 #
The 100-400L can replace any 70-200, 70-300, similar lenses, except when you need that f/2.8 aperture in low light. Although slightly physically larger than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, the two lenses are essentially the same weight.
The 100-400 will be an excellent tool for FLA wildlife and sports, sunsets, etc, better suited than the 70-200. The 1.4xIII makes the 100-400 even better for wildlife. When it comes to two lenses, you might want to put an EF 40 pancake or EF 50 f/1.8 into a shorts pocket for a convenient 2nd lens option. The 70-200 f/2.8 is an excellent tool for indoor event shooting, but otherwise you likely won't miss it.
The 100-400 will be an excellent tool for FLA wildlife and sports, sunsets, etc, better suited than the 70-200. The 1.4xIII makes the 100-400 even better for wildlife. When it comes to two lenses, you might want to put an EF 40 pancake or EF 50 f/1.8 into a shorts pocket for a convenient 2nd lens option. The 70-200 f/2.8 is an excellent tool for indoor event shooting, but otherwise you likely won't miss it.
Nov 25, 2020 14:56:57 #
I have the 100-400 and found it to be a great lens,. I do not have the other lenses you mentioned. You might be able to pick up a used 100-400mm at a reasonable cost as the RF-100-500mm is now available for the Canon R models. I preferred using the EF 100-400mm over the 150-600mm I use to have. Does not answer your question, just my experience with the EF-100-400mm.
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.
Nov 25, 2020 15:04:35 #
I have the 100-400 II lens, and if it broke, I would replace it tomorrow. It is extremely flexible and you are correct about the close focus. It's almost like a macro with better depth of field control and the ability to stand off small moving subject like insects.
When I need a wider aperture, I use one my prime lenses.
When I need a wider aperture, I use one my prime lenses.
Nov 25, 2020 15:23:14 #
I selected my newest Canon as the lightest of my choices, 77D verses the 80. Approaching 82 weight was foremost in my mind. Look at your recent captures and decide if the extra reach is necessary. I have had to reduce my "expeditions" in local nature refuges. Went out today for a jaunt through a cemetery and my mind was not on anything photographic! I am not inferring anything about your condition, up until I hit 80 I could keep up with the best of them. With winter upon us in the northeast I do not look forward to a sedentary season. Good luck!!
Nov 25, 2020 18:29:54 #
HankR
Loc: So. East Florida
Thank you. Your response and others you have posted are to the point & informative.
Nov 25, 2020 18:34:09 #
HankR
Loc: So. East Florida
Much appreciated & I live in NYC & upstate for many years & understand about the cold & winters.
Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.
Nov 25, 2020 18:50:07 #
HankR wrote:
Is it unreasonable to substitute the Canon EF 100-... (show quote)
In your list of current lenses you say you own a EF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS II, but later say you would have to sell the "28-70" to buy the 100-400mm zoom. Which lens you actually own isn't really relevant to my comment, just pointing out the discrepancy.
I don't personally own any of the equipment you have or desire...I'm a Nikon shooter, but that also is not relevant to the following.
I would be hard pressed to give up my wide angle to short telephoto zoom as it is possibly the most useful lens in my bag, and the lens that is generally mounted on my F100 most of the time as a walk around lens. Of course it all depends upon what you like to shoot.
Sacrificing speed for reach I would be more inclined to give up the 70-200 if a sacrifice had to be made.
Food for thought.
Nov 25, 2020 22:22:12 #
I have both lenses that you mention. If I had to part with one it would be the 70-200.
Nov 26, 2020 06:55:28 #
Tough question. As Paul said it really depends on how often you need the 2.8 capability. I need both lenses for motor sports when the races goes from daytime to after dark. Even for Everglades I’ll carry both the 70-200 and the 100-400. Given what you said you shoot the 100-400 might be your best choice
Hugh
Hugh
Nov 26, 2020 07:59:32 #
IHH61 wrote:
Tough question. As Paul said it really depends on how often you need the 2.8 capability. I need both lenses for motor sports when the races goes from daytime to after dark. Even for Everglades I’ll carry both the 70-200 and the 100-400. Given what you said you shoot the 100-400 might be your best choice
Hugh
Hugh
I have the RF version of both lenses, having moved up from the EF versions. The RF 70 -200 has a small form factor when not mounted/extended and is therefore easy to Cary around. The f2.8 is great to have in low light situations or for me, with high school basketball where the light in the gym would not be sufficient for the 100 - 400 at reasonable stop action shutter speeds and ISOs. With the small form factor, I tend to use the RF 70-200 as a “walk around” lens. At the beach in Southern Florida the 70 mm works fine for Landscape shots and the 200 is effective for shore birds. So far, I am very impressed with the optical quality of both lenses.
Check out AI Artistry and Creation section of our forum.
Nov 26, 2020 08:13:53 #
DRM
Loc: NC
I am almost exclusively a landscape and wildlife shooter. A few years back, I made two lens decisions for my (then) 5D III and 5D IV:
1. I exchanged the 24-70 f/2.8 for the 24-105 f/4 v.Ii
2. I exchanged the 70-200 f/2.8 for the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 (and later exchanged that for v. II).
I reasoned that, for my shooting, the additional focal length range gained offset the reduction in max aperture/low light performance. I have not regretted my choices once. I don't think you will regret moving to the 100-400 v.II.
1. I exchanged the 24-70 f/2.8 for the 24-105 f/4 v.Ii
2. I exchanged the 70-200 f/2.8 for the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 (and later exchanged that for v. II).
I reasoned that, for my shooting, the additional focal length range gained offset the reduction in max aperture/low light performance. I have not regretted my choices once. I don't think you will regret moving to the 100-400 v.II.
Nov 26, 2020 11:06:42 #
Zoomed in, you give up 2 stops with the 100-400 which I think is significant as far as versatility is concerned. I also find the 70-200 to be the sharper of the two.
Perhaps adding a 1.4 or 2.0 doubler would give you enough extra reach.
Perhaps adding a 1.4 or 2.0 doubler would give you enough extra reach.
Nov 26, 2020 11:30:40 #
HankR wrote:
Is it unreasonable to substitute the Canon EF 100-... (show quote)
The Canon 2X III extender is a much less expensive solution for you ! -IF- the slightly slower AF will not be a concern for faster moving subjects ! If 400mm is not enough "reach" for you, consider a GOOD crop frame body ....
.
Nov 26, 2020 11:57:37 #
I have 12 EF lenses, 7 of which are L series. If I were forced to keep only one, it would be the 100-400 II. The main reason is that it is fun to use. It's not the sharpest lens I own (though very sharp). It doesn't have the best bokeh, the aperture is too small for serious portraits and it's pretty much useless inside. The AF is really good though not as good as my 24-70 2.8 II. The IS is outstanding. I can handhold down to about 1/50 no problem. Some lenses just produce beautiful images and this is one of them. Even with the limitations, it is more versatile than most or all lenses with 400mm. The MFD at only 3 ft. is very useful. I'm surprised how good it is for closeups. Overall, it is too long for landscapes but in certain environments, it shines there too producing beautiful scenes. Wildlife is its forte of course. It also works very well with a 1.4X III. I haven't tried a 2X.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Software and Computer Support for Photographers section of our forum.