Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 2.8L IS compared to 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS

Go to last post
N

nautigar

Well-known member
Messages
145
Reaction score
1
Location
Stuttgart, DE
Hello,

I do not want to decide in between those lenses, I intend to get the 100-400 in addition to my 70-200. 70-200 is great for low light and/or high shutter speeds, and the 100-400 would be great for more reach.

However, I think I am spoiled by the quality of the 70-200 2.8L IS. It is by far the best lens I have been using on my 20D. (Other lenses I use are the 17-40 4.0 and the 24-105 4.0 IS).

My question: How is the 100-400 in terms of picture quality, particularly sharpness, when compared to the 70-200? Will I be disappointed when I compare pictures of the two lenses?

I am grateful for any advice, in particular of people that own both lenses.

Matthias.
 
I've got the 70-200 f4 IS - which is reputed to be as sharp as the f2.8 - and the 100-400 and I don't believe there is a great deal of difference in sharpness between them. I print up to 24" x 16" on my Epson 4000 and while there may be a little difference in sharpness it can be adjusted for in post- processing. I use my 100-400 for animals: 1DmkIII 385mm f8 ISO 400



Birds: 20D - details not available



and Aircraft: 20D 160mm f9 ISO 200



Get the 100-400 - You'll appreciate the extra length (sounds like a viagra commercial !)
 
In the eyes of pixelpeepers, most 70-200 is sharper than the 100-400. For real photographic use, there is little difference in terms of sharpness, contrast between the two. The 100-400 is capable of producing very high quality images just as the 70-200 does.

I found myself use 100-400 more often than the 70-200 although it is optically slower(f4.5-5.6). But that can be easily compensated by increase ISO.
Here are a few samples produced by my 100-400:
http://www.pbase.com/ltjiang/image/79609300
http://www.pbase.com/ltjiang/image/79609306

--
http://www.pbase.com/ltjiang
 
I have both the lenses in question - 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and the 100-400mm IS, and provided that you get a good copy of the 100-400mm IS lens - I doubt very seriously that you will be dissapointed.

I was really concerned about handholding this lens, especially at 400mm, even with the added benefit of IS (I have very shaky hands), but this lens extended to it full length and wide open is super sharp, even handheld.

For me at least, this lens is directly on par in terms of IQ with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens. It's just longer in focal length, and not as wide in aperture. Great lens for animal photography, I just wish I had bought this lens before we went to Yellowstone.

Good luck to you!

--
bryan
--------
Oak & Acorn
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oakandacorns/sets/

Jackson Hole, Grand Teton & Yellowstone National Park 2007 Slideshow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oakandacorns/sets/72157600241846923/show/



 
Here's a slideshow of shots just with the 100-400IS at various zoom ranges - and the majority wide open.
http://www.jlmay.f2s.com/Swannery.html

I also have a 70-200 F4 L IS and I find there's very little in it.
nautigar said:
Hello,

I do not want to decide in between those lenses, I intend to get the
100-400 in addition to my 70-200. 70-200 is great for low light
and/or high shutter speeds, and the 100-400 would be great for more
reach.

However, I think I am spoiled by the quality of the 70-200 2.8L IS.
It is by far the best lens I have been using on my 20D. (Other lenses
I use are the 17-40 4.0 and the 24-105 4.0 IS).

My question: How is the 100-400 in terms of picture quality,
particularly sharpness, when compared to the 70-200? Will I be
disappointed when I compare pictures of the two lenses?

I am grateful for any advice, in particular of people that own both
lenses.

Matthias.
Click to expand...
--

 
Really great Pics Phillip, love the seagull shot, also pretty cool how you can see the pilot of that plane...Thanks
PhillipA said:
I've got the 70-200 f4 IS - which is reputed to be as sharp as the
f2.8 - and the 100-400 and I don't believe there is a great deal of
difference in sharpness between them. I print up to 24" x 16" on my
Epson 4000 and while there may be a little difference in sharpness it
can be adjusted for in post- processing. I use my 100-400 for
animals: 1DmkIII 385mm f8 ISO 400
Click to expand...
PhillipA said:
Get the 100-400 - You'll appreciate the extra length (sounds like a
viagra commercial !)
Click to expand...
--

'Take the attitude of a student, never be too big to ask questions, never know too much to learn something new.'
 
I also have both of these lenses. I love both of them and have taken many pictures that I really like with both. I have also tested them side-by-side on a resolution chart and dollar bill.

From my test, the 70-200 is noticeably sharper at equivalent focal lengths and apertures. In fact, I think the 70-200 is sharper at 200mm f4 than the 100-400 is at 200mm f5.6. However, the differences are only apparent when I look at 100% at pictures taken with my XTi. In real-world use, my 100-400 produces lots of pictures that I am very happy with. Here is a recent example, 400mm, f6.3, ISO400:



And here is another one I really liked with the 100-400, 400mm, f7.1, ISO1600:



My observations about the 100-400 is that it is at its best in good light and suffers in lower-light situations. Also, I believe its sharpness at 400mm improves if you stop down to f6.3. You will notice, probably, that using the 100-400, you end up getting into the upper ISO settings a lot more than you do with the 70-200, and generally I feel that when I shoot with the 100-400, I am not really choosing from a range of possible aperture settings as I feel I am with the 70-200. Nevertheless, I really like my 100-400 and it is my most-used lens by far.

Hope that helps.

Chris
http://www.pbase.com/cwillis
 
Hello,

thanks all for your valuable input. Seems I have to save for my next lens investment. As I read in the specs, it is even a bit lighter than the 70-200 2.8.

A final question: Is the quality constant throughout the zoom range at a given aperture? Or does it have a good end and and a not-so-.go-good end?

Thanks again,

Matthias.
 
I just spent the last three days shooting with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4L IS, and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. I went to an airshow where Canon lets you borrow the lenses. I thought I wanted to buy a 100-400 before I got to try them. 5000 shots later I know I want the 70-200 f/4L IS. Has enough reach for the airshows I go to, and is so much lighter. Also I think my shots with it where much sharper than the 100-400. The f/2.8 was also very nice but I dont need the extra light or expense. it is also the heaviest of the three. These are just my opinions, your shooting my vary.

F22 full frame just resized for the web. f/5.6 1/1000s ISO100 176mm 70-200 f/4L IS



F86 full frame just resized for the web. f/5.6 1/1000 ISO 200mm 100 70-200 f/4L IS

 
Some have said that their copy is a bit softer at 400mm than at shorter focal lengths. I don't find this with mine at all - it's quite sharp all the way through.
 
You seem to hear all the time about soft 100-400's, but I found myself that it had more to do with poor long-lens technique than a soft lens. I think a lot of the chatter is because buyers have a very short window of time in which to "test" their new lens before the return policy is up and they never really get a chance to learn how to use it. Even with IS, at the long end the sucker will waver around. If you have good long lens skills, I think you'll find the 100-400 is pretty close to the 70-200/2.8 at most print sizes.
--
30D and Canon L's

'What do you mean they blew up the Death Star?! What the h*ll is an Aluminum Falcon??!!' - Emperor Palpatine (Robot Chicken Star Wars parody)
 
FatBoyAl said:
You seem to hear all the time about soft 100-400's, but I found
myself that it had more to do with poor long-lens technique than a
soft lens. I think a lot of the chatter is because buyers have a very
short window of time in which to "test" their new lens before the
return policy is up and they never really get a chance to learn how
to use it. Even with IS, at the long end the sucker will waver
around. If you have good long lens skills, I think you'll find the
100-400 is pretty close to the 70-200/2.8 at most print sizes.
Click to expand...
Either I got a really good one or I'm just not critical enough - at 400mm, my 100-400 is very sharp. I really appreciate the flexibility of the lens as far as zoom range goes, and deliberately chose that range vs. 70-200.

Agree with others that it requires a good deal of light and I'm still evaluating my options for mid-range, indoor / low-light sports (e.g., volleyball, basketball, etc.), but am very happy with the 100-400 for outdoor use.

--
John Walker
http://jhwalker.smugmug.com/
 
Nice pictures you have there, the flowers, animals, architecture, portraits and all...and the landscape oh that was so beautiful.

Camera technique set aside, those pictures are very good indeed…you are a good photographer :-)
 
I received my 100-400 last week, and shot these comparison pictures:

Unfortunately, both pictures were shot in "P" mode, resulting is different exposures. I didn't realize how different they were, until just now. If I would have noticed the large difference, I would have re-shot them at the same exposure.

With that in mind, here they are.



200mm: f/5.6 -- 1/800



400mm: f/8 -- 1/500
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top