(100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography

Started May 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
phill104 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,839
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography

I currently own both a 100-400 and a 70-200 F2.8 IS II. While the 70-200 is an absolutely superb lens it lacks the versatility of the 100-400. I've found for the kind of wildlife I shoot that the versatility is important.

The 100-400 has a great minimum focus distance of 1.8 meters so if you are getting close to creatures it is fantastic. The 400mm end despite some reports on here mainly by pixel peepers is superb and the IS while being an older version still does a great job. Another plus is that when packed in a bag it takes up very little room (same space as the 70-200) so when walking about or travelling you can leave it attached which is a real boon.

The 70-200 without extender does pick up more detail in low light situations but there is not too much in it TBH. Yes, a 400mm F2.8 or 300mm F2.8 might be sharper but do you really want to lug that around all over the place? Knowing a lot of keen amateur wildlife photographers who own big glass all say their best shots are often from smaller more versatile zooms simply because they can be more mobile.

And please, do not listen to all the vacuum cleaner type posts on the 100-400. I have used mine in some very harsh dusty and windy conditions when doing windsurfing photography and 6 years of use has seen almost no dust whatsoever inside my lens.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow