Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - or - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II

sigxbill wrote:

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

I plan to upgrade my excellent Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS to the even better Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Then enter the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.

I use a Canon 6D and sometimes my old 20D as a second camera for reach 112-320mm.

My lenses in order of use: 24-70f/2.8L II IS, 70-200/4L IS, 16-35f/4 IS

My photography is mainly of my family, street life, people, architecture, travel and vacations, 5-13y old kids, in/out doors sports and some wildlife.

Some times I really miss my Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L a very good lens but it really was not very convenient to use for my needs, it caused lots of lens changing, I wish it had IS and a lot shorter minimum focus distance than 11.5' / 3.5m. More reach than 200mm would be great but only occasionally.

Q1 - Browsing the net it is hard to find many user examples of family/kids/people taken at the 100mm short end of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II is this lens made mostly for 200-400mm birding and wildlife?

Q2 - Please post some of your photographs of family/kids/people taken at the 100mm short end of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.

Q3 - How well can the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II replace the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for mainly people/family/vacation use?

Hard choice, clearly two very good lenses.

Hi Pietro,

I recently faced similar decision issues, as my subjects are the same as yours (except I don't do architecture or wildlife) and will share some of my conclusions that may help you. I considered the 100-400 II very seriously, as my kids play football (soccer), but ultimately decided on the 70-300L.

Yes the 70-300L is a very fine lens indeed, sharp, compact and only ca 300g more than the only slightly sharper 70-200L f4 IS.

It would be nice to have a 2.8 telephoto lens, but one place I would use the 70-200 2.8L II, if I owned it, is to capture my kids in school performances - which are indoor, on stage with spot-lights at night. For these kind's of shots, I would rarely use 2.8 anyway, so that is one less reason for me, in case you are looking for reasons, to not need a 2.8 lens of this nature. It would be nice to have 2.8 for football (soccer), but 70-200mm is a bit short for that.

My son changes sports and activities all the time it is impossible to know what will come up next term. I feel that this fast and sharp 2.8 tele zoom offers more advantages than usage in badly lit indoors situations. The only disadvantages I can find are price and weight.

Q1 comment: the reason you don't find many of these photos is because most of these are taken in a house - and 100mm is too long for this - at least for me. I find my 50mm prime to be ideal for these kinds of shots. Unless I am doing only upper body shots, I find my 100mm prime to be too long for full body portraiture in my house - and I live in a fairly big house.

I think you are right, and all that have the money to buy a 100-400L II most certainly also own a better lens to use inside a house. Many inexpensive primes like the 35f/2.0 IS the 50f/1.8 are perfect for this. But still, why so very few photos of people, street life and photos from vacations outside at 100-150mm with this lens? Is it mainly used for BIF and wildlife at 200-400mm?

Q2 comment: I recently visited my local Canon facility, where I tested the 100-400 II. I can assure you that even in low light, the lens focused very accurately - despite it's slower aperture. I had some of my kids with me (my 4 year olds), and the IS worked well, but their lack of ability to sit still highlighted the 100-400 II's inability to capture motion in low light.

If I buy the 100-400L II I want to use all the 100-400 range from closeups, portraits, people, events to 400mm for the odd wildlife and BIF. In essence when I need more reach than my 24-70f/2.8 II has for: Family, vacations, people, school events, kid sports and some occasional BIF & wildlife too.

Q3 comment: I have read some photographers are making this replacement. I have not tried the 70-200 2.8L II, but I can tell you that despite my heart being set on the 100-400 II, I quickly decided it was way too heavy for me (a fairly fit man) to want to use much for anything other than mono-pod mounted football (soccer) matches of my 13 year old boys. Since both lenses are similar in size and weight, I would imagine I might come to the same conclusion on the 70-200 2.8L II.

I tried the 70-200L f/2.8L IS when it was introduced, it was way to expensive for me at the time. The 2x weight was also a minus helping me to forget about upgrading.

I hope this helps,

bill

Thanks for your help Bill!