jcarey88

I have read lots of reviews on these lenses and I am looking for opinions from experienced photographers for what might work best for my needs. I shoot a Canon 70d and am a novice working on better understanding photography. I originally was saving for the 100-400 ll for wildlife photography and my daughter’s outdoor activities including equestrian 4h events, but she now is doing a lot of indoor equestrian events. Do you think the 70-200 with the 2.0 Tele extender(for outdoor events and wildlife) or the 100-400 and give up quality in the indoor events. Is there a body that I should consider before better glass. I currently use the 18-135 and 55-250 for photos and videos of these activities. I have a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 that takes great pics but the auto focus is slow and it searches, so I think I would like to go the Canon route unless y’all feel it wouldn’t be worth it due to my lack of experience.
Thanks for your help in advance,
Jcarey88

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

You will need the f2.8 for indoor and speed of focus period. Outdoors, the 70-200 W/2x would be OK - but not ideal for focus speed and the 100-400 would be faster - in good light outdoors IMO.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The 100-400L II is the better, all around lens. If you have to make an either / or decision, this is the lens that is the better long-term choice. For your indoor needs, what focal length are you shooting? As a family member I'm going to guess you have close / behind the scenes access where your 24-70 or the other two zooms are very practical. So, Id' expect the unsatisfied need is indoors, low-light, at-distance. Here I'd look instead at the EF 200mm f/2.8L II or the EF 135mm f/2L USM. Both are built like tanks, create excellent images no matter what they're pointed at, and are relative bargains when purchased used. Both can be extended with a 1.4III for more reach and retain autofocus on your 70D. Given we're in Fall, heading into the indoor Winter & early Spring seasons, either of these prime ideas will address you needs over the next few months and you can determine in 6-months-ish if you need the big & expensive zoom with more focal length for outdoors.

One of our UHH colleagues chose the 135 & FF 6D for rodeo use indoors in Albuquerque a few months ago. Your crop factor will bring the action even closer. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-486021-1.html#8172765

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I have both 70-200/2.8 and the 100-400 II lenses (also 300/2.8, 300/4 and 70-200/4)... and I use them a lot for equestrian photography, mostly on a pair of 7DII cameras that have essentially the same sensor as your 70D.

The 100-400 II is and excellent outdoor lens, but just not "bright enough" for a lot of indoor shooting. With f/5 up to about 300mm and f/5.6 beyond that, I cannot use it in many covered arenas without having to use slightly too slow a shutter speed or a little bit too high an ISO (and I use up to 6400 pretty freely with my 7DIIs). Indoors I usually use at least f/4 lenses... or, with less high ISO-capable cameras in the past, f/2.8 lenses. I also find that I rarely need more than 300mm on an APS-C cameras, with typical arenas. But I am the "official" photographer at the events and might have closer access than you usually enjoy (during some of the more sedate events such equitation and pleasure "rail" classes, I'm often in the arena itself, with the competitors... though in those cases I often switch to 70-200mm and 24-70mm lenses on my cameras).

Where I use the 100-400mm most is outdoors, with larger arena events such as gymkhana. It's very sharp and quite fast focusing, plus has the latest-and-greatest, high performance image stabilization. It also would be excellent for wildlife photography... probably better than any shorter lens or zoom combined with a teleconverter. (On your 70D, the 100-400mm is not usable with 1.4X... on more recent models such as 7DII and 80D, it is.)



Now, the 100-400mm II is fairly large and heavy, too (about 3.5 lb.) I use it handheld a lot, but for longer sessions I'll usually put it on a tripod (Gitzo series 3 with a gimbal adapter). It's NOT an "Internal Focusing/Internal Zooming" lens ("IF/IZ", the way all the Canon 70-200s are), so it grows longer, which upsets balance slightly on a gimbal.... But that's manageable. It DOES have sophisticated IS that doesn't need to be turned off when using it on a tripod (the first version 100-400 didn't.... neither does the EF 300/4L IS.... their IS should be manually turned off if using them locked down on a tripod.)

One thing that's important if wanting to to use the 100-400 II on a tripod or monopod.... the OEM tripod mounting foot is "stylish and conveniently removeable", but simply doesn't work well with Arca-style quick release lens plates. Fortunately though, there are replacement tripod mounting ring feet being offered by RRS, Kirk, and Hejnar Photo. I ended up buying and use the Hejnar.

I have not used a 2X with 70-200/2.8 II. I would strongly encourage you to research that combo very carefully before going that route... to see if the resulting image quality will be acceptable for your purposes. The "II" version of the lens and the Canon 2X "III" are said to work together very well (much better than any of the other Canon 70-200/2.8s with any of the 2X Extenders). But there's inevitably some loss of image quality, as well as some slowing of autofocus performance. Many people find it acceptable... but some others don't. Maybe a 1.4X would give you "enough reach" for your purposes.... there's a lot less loss of IQ with the weaker TCs (not to mention, a stop less light lost). I frequently use a Canon 1.4X II on 300mm and 500mm primes (and occasionally on 135/2). But I haven't needed to use it on any of my zooms. It works very well with 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS and 300/4L IS. For example, below was shot with the 300/4 + 1.4X combo, here on 5D Mark II...



And the same combo on original 7D...



I also have Canon 2X II Extender, but use it pretty sparingly and only on my 300/2.8L or 500/4L primes.

I also mentioned the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM that I use. It's about 2/3 the size and weight of the 70-200/2.8 lenses. I originally bought it as a backup, since 70-200 are one of my most used lenses. But I now find I actually use it more often, since I ain't gettin' any younger and have really learned to appreciate the lighter weight and smaller size. The 70-200/4 is also quite high performance with excellent image quality...



The 100-400mm and most of the Canon 70-200mm lenses (except for the oldest f/2.8s... the one without IS and the original IS) use fluorite elements that contribute to their high image quality. Canon has used fluorite in many of their telephotos for decades, even in their FL/FD series prior to the modern EF/EOS lenses. Nikon has recently converted many of their telephotos to use fluorite, too (including their latest 70-200mm f/2.8). But AFAIK, Canon and Nikon are the only lens manufacturers using it. Fluorite is particularly effective counteracting chromatic aberrations, among other things. But it's rarely found naturally occurring large enough for lens elements, and it's difficult to work with. As a result, it has historically been pricey. For example the Nikon 70-200mm FL costs $2800, which is about 33% more expensive than their prior version without it). However, Canon pioneered both growing their own fluorite crystals and methods of working with it, so has been able to offer lenses using FL that cost as little as $650 (not to mention that Nikon's 70-200 FL costs almost 50% more than Canon's 70-200/2.8 II).

All the above are USM lenses... And that - especially along with f/2.8 lenses (without any teleconverter) - enables the highest performance AF when shooting stills of fast action. The 300 f/4 and 100-400mm II are ever so slightly slower focusing than f/2.8 lenses... hardly noticeable in reasonably good light. Overall, a camera upgrade wouldn't do much for you... EXCEPT in this respect. Your 70D's AF is probably rated to -1 EV. Next generation models such as 7D Mark II and 80D are now using AF systems rated to -3EV, so might be a little better performing indoors in more challenging lighting. ALSO, I think your 70D has the "Flicker Free" feature that's very helpful under a lot of types of indoor lighting... but if it doesn't, both 80D and 7DII have that feature. It makes a huge difference in the percentage of accurate exposures under sodium vapor, fluorescent and some other types of lights. But, to be honest, I used a pair of original 7D for five years without any problem, including a lot of indoor/covered arena work. Your 70D has essentially the same 19-point AF system as those cameras used.

Finally, you also mention shooting video and may want to switch back to your STM lenses for that. Most USM lenses are not ideal for video work, if you are using AF and/or recording sound. According to Canon, USM is 2X to 4X faster focusing than STM (using their EF-S 18-135mm example, because that one of the few lenses, maybe the only one that's made with both types of AF drive).... BUT, STM is smoother and quieter, so may be preferred for video work. Note: Several of the latest Canon cameras are using a new form of "Nano USM" that's both fast for action shooting AND good for video work. However, AFAIK so far this includes only the EF-S 18-135mm USM, EF 24-105mm f/4L "II", and EF 70-300mm IS USM "II" are utilizing this new type of focus drive.

Hope this helps!

jcarey88

Thanks for you response!

selwyntdavid

Thanks Alan for your detail answer. This is useful to me as I was contemplating on a 100 - 400 for Canon my 7DII. Did you say it will not work with the convertor?

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

You are trying to serve two gods with one lens. :) They are both great lens. if you give up the 2.8 you will be at a big disadvantage for low light indoor quality. With a 2x you will only get to 400 full frame. if you are you on a crop sensor this gets you to 600. If 600 is enough then go for 70-200.

In the '$$$$ideal$$$ world, both!!! :)

jcarey88

imagemeister, thanks for your response!

jcarey88

Thank you for your response imagemeister!

jcarey88

CHG_CANON thanks for the info, I appreciate all the help!

jcarey88

amfoto1, thank you so much for your very detailed and informative post. This being my first post I wasn't sure if it would even be seen. It seemed easier than trying to figure out how to reply to comments, not sure I have figured that out yet. (I hope you see this) I have read lots of posts and everyone is definitely very helpful in this forum! The Equitation and Pleasure classes would be awesome from inside arena! Those are the classes that I would like more reach to get across the arena on opposite rail. I have much to learn and was hoping to get opinions and guidance from the many photographers on this forum, your post is so very helpful and I appreciate the time and effort! Thanks again!!!!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If you tend to shoot wildlife outdoors your best bet is the 100-400. If however your cup of tea is indoor on night football games then the 70-200 would do the trick. However, my buddy shoots sports with the 100-400 and likes it. Wish Nikon made that lens, I would buy it in a heart beat.

jcarey88

pithydoug thanks for your response, would love to have both! :)

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

The 70-200 F2.8 will win hands down for the arena work; do not think of using the 2X extender, you will be sadly disapponinted- get the 1.4 111 instead, and for outside work the EF 100-400 IS 11 usm is tops.

MidnightManiac

The 70-200 with a 1.4X extender will give you great results. Sold my 2X extender as the results after many snaps were not acceptable. Have a 70-200 f2.8 and a canon 70-200 f4 love the f4 for outdoors, have used both with the 1.4 extender and WOW...