70-200 f/4 IS or 100-400 IS for landscape, school play and more ...

Sorry to ask this question that i am sure has been asked before but i really want to place an order this weekend.

i cannot decide which lens to buy, the 70-200 f/4 IS seems a very good lens, very sharp and light to carry. the 100-400 will give more distance but is it the same IQ?

and general asking which one is better for landscape, school play, portrait, wild life at zoos?
please i really need your advice on that.

many thanks,

Oraman

--
My Gear:
Canon 400D
Canon 17-55 IS
Sigma 28-300

As telezoom lenses they are not a gooid choice for landscape shots... As for IQ they are 2 excelent lenses and you canont go rong with eather...

Obviously the 100-400 gives the extra zoom but is slower then the 70-200... an dalso it's a "log" to cary arround, as the the 70-200 is lighter.

If you donot mind the extra weight and really need the extra zoom go for the 100-400, but if these are of no concern to you then go with the 70-200.

remenber thar both lenese will do a nice job with "actoin" shots but with good lighting.

Cheers (sorry about my english)

I disagree with the previous post. I think the telephoto lenses can produce some very nice landscape images, but that is only my opinion.

I do agree that both are very nice lenses and serve a good purpose.

I find that most people use the 100-400 as a nature photography lens (BIF, bears, coyote, etc.) and not landscape. Yes, it is heavy (3 lbs) and has the push/pull zoom. From what I can tell and from what I have read (I do not own one) it is sharp out to at least 300 mm and then quality degrades just a little. It is still better at 400 mm compared to a 70-200 f2.8 IS with a 2x TC if you are into pixel peeping. If you spend most of your time at that length, then perhaps a long prime would serve you better.

The 70-200 L IS would be a good long portrait and compressed landscape lens. Ideally you would use the f2.8 version for portraits so that you can cleanly isolate your subject. But I would hate to lug the 2.8 IS around the mountains. The f4 IS is still light enough to carry and (I think) would serve your purposes well.

That's my $0.02.

S

Neither will be great for school plays because they are generally in the least well lit places outside of caves.

Why are you looking for a landscape lens when you have the 17-55 IS? I'm confused as to what the gap is here.

If your 17-55 is adequate, I'd get the 70-200 and an 85 1.8 for zoos / portraits and dank dark school plays.

good luck

And bobtex has another good option. Get the 70-200 for some reach and the very nice 85 f1.8 for low light situations. A lot of folks here and else where really like the 85 f1.8 for indoor sports and drama.

S

i agree that the 85 f/1.8 is very good for dark place etc school play, but i like the flexibility of a telephoto lens, if the 70-200 f/2.8 was lighter i would have got it, but i think the f/4 with a flash will do the trick for dose dark places.

as for landscapes the 17-55 is a very good, sharp lens and i like it a lot, but i want more distance in the landscape pics.

--
My Gear:
Canon 400D
Canon 17-55 IS
Sigma 28-300

Ricardo Ribeiro said:

As telezoom lenses they are not a gooid choice for landscape shots...
As for IQ they are 2 excelent lenses and you canont go rong with
eather...

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you would say that a telezoom is not a good choice for landscapes... Landscapes can be a wide vista or a distant peak. And they are particularly useful for isolating subjects within a landscape. When out shooting landscapes my telephotos are often my most used tool. Here are a few examples:

1DsMk3 and 70-300IS at 300mm:



Also at 300mm:



At 200mm:







In fact (and to the original poster), I used to use the 70-200 for my telephoto landscape needs but didn't find it had enough reach. And it certainly far too short for wildlife, even in a zoo. So between your two choices the easy choice is the 100-400L. Neither of hte lenses you mentioned are good for school plays or portraits. For this you will want and/or need a fast aperture to capture low light and blur backgrounds. So add the 85 1.8 to your 100-400 and you're set! Hope this helps,

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

100-400L is such a versatile lens.

--
Bobby

http://www.bobbyzphotography.com

I own a 100-400 and use it a lot, mostly for outside stuff and on a monopod. It is an excellent lens and a very useful range. It can be hand held too. Probably not going to work well inside w/o a flash. I adapted to the push pull very fast.

For school plays, I would suggest a 135 f2.0. Very sharp and fast, plus more zoom than the 85 1.8 and pricier, unfortunately.
100-400 in action at 400



--
Mark
http://markm.zenfolio.com/

In general most people probably want wider lenses for landscape use... but long lenses also work for landscape. For example:



(Shot with the Canon 100-400 L)

That said, lenses that are great for landscape are typically quite different than lenses that will be great for "school plays" and similar. For example, in the former case you would probably be shooting most of the time at small apertures and on a tripod, while in the latter there is a good chance that you'd be shooting wide open and handheld. If you try to make one lens do all things it generally will either cost more than you can imagine and/or do all of them less than optimally.

Which is more important to you, landscape or indoor event photography? Pick one and make sure that the lenses you get will do that extremely well, and hopefully may work well enough for the other.

That said, it is very hard for me to imagine doing much indoor event photography with the 100-400. I'm not saying that it isn't possible, just that it is unlikely and that there are a lot of better options. You might find more use for the 70-200 f/4.

Have you thought about picking up a few primes?

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell
SF Bay Area
Blog: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/wpg2/

I know that's not the answer you wanted, but it is likely to be where you end up eventually. My three most used lenses are the 17-55, 70-200 f4IS, and the 100-400.

The 70-200 is a great medium tele. It feels great on the camera and has excellent IQ. It works OK for school plays, but obviously something faster is always better when shooting in dark environs like school plays.

On the other hand, if I'm headed to the zoo, birding, or chasing wildlife, I'll always grab my trusty 100-400L.

I guess if I were in your shoes, I would go for the 100-400L now and start saving my money for the 70-200 soon. Then again my opinion of what you should do is worth what you paid for it.

MarkB

bobbyz said:

100-400L is such a versatile lens.

--
Bobby

http://www.bobbyzphotography.com

Click to expand...

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

you have excellent EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM for landscape, portrait, school (evtl. with flash for indoors or evening outdoors).
I would buy:

1. EF 70-200 f/4 LIS (sharp, fast focusing, not so heavy like its 2.8 version) for school out/indoor, for outdoor sport, for landscape, for ZOO. Don´t forget the quite limited reach of the flash - If you would like to use it with the 70-200.

2. TC 1.4 to extend the 70-200 for more distant ZOO and landscape (The AF will became more slowly - no issue, the mountain will not run away).

You cover the range between 17 - 280mm with only gap between 55-70mm with it. Everything sharp, excellent IQ and still lightweight.

Hello, I was in the same situation and I bought the 70-200mm because of the weight, but now I wish I'd getting the 100-400mm, I find the 70-200mm range a bit short. The 100-400mm range would be ideal for landscapes.

Cheers

http://www.hopesphotos.co.uk

I have the 100-400 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and use both for landscapes. The 100-400 is used rather more often than the 70-200 which I purchased first. The following shot was at 300 mm so would not have been possible with the 70-200. I value the extra length. Both lenses have quite good optics. I also have a 24-105 f/4 L IS for the shorter stuff.



--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

you shut off the IS when on your monopod, or at least select option "2"? I just received a 1-4 the other day and can't wait for sunshine.
Cameras: 40 and 30 Dee's
Thanks from Dene in Canada

N59 said:

you have excellent EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM for landscape, portrait,
school (evtl. with flash for indoors or evening outdoors).
I would buy:
1. EF 70-200 f/4 LIS (sharp, fast focusing, not so heavy like its 2.8
version) for school out/indoor, for outdoor sport, for landscape, for
ZOO. Don´t forget the quite limited reach of the flash - If you would
like to use it with the 70-200.
2. TC 1.4 to extend the 70-200 for more distant ZOO and landscape
(The AF will became more slowly - no issue, the mountain will not run
away).

You cover the range between 17 - 280mm with only gap between 55-70mm
with it. Everything sharp, excellent IQ and still lightweight.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more
--
We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?

i agree with what you say, and will go for the 70-200 f/4 IS, and save to also get the 100-400 for those special shots, safari, bird etc..
Lens comes in step by step ...

--
My Gear:
Canon 400D
Canon 17-55 IS
Sigma 28-300

Ricardo Ribeiro said:

As telezoom lenses they are not a gooid choice for landscape shots...

Click to expand...

If you watch Art Wolfe's Travels to the Edge, the 70-200 2.8 is probably his most used lens for landscape photography.

I don't think I would recommend using a TC for landscape images. Typically you want maximum edge to edge sharpness and my experience has been that a TC degrades your images more significantly around the edges. I would make this decision based on your focal length and aperture needs and your weight tolerance. Both lenses will produce excellent images at their native focal ranges and apertures. IQ should not be the deciding factor IMO.

Pat

N59 said:

you have excellent EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM for landscape, portrait,
school (evtl. with flash for indoors or evening outdoors).
I would buy:
1. EF 70-200 f/4 LIS (sharp, fast focusing, not so heavy like its 2.8
version) for school out/indoor, for outdoor sport, for landscape, for
ZOO. Don´t forget the quite limited reach of the flash - If you would
like to use it with the 70-200.
2. TC 1.4 to extend the 70-200 for more distant ZOO and landscape
(The AF will became more slowly - no issue, the mountain will not run
away).

You cover the range between 17 - 280mm with only gap between 55-70mm
with it. Everything sharp, excellent IQ and still lightweight.

Click to expand...