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

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

ShortestPath wrote:

The two lenses you mention are very similar in size, weight, price and sharpness (excellent). The question is, would you rather have one more stop of aperture than your 70-200 f4 or a lot more reach?

Yes this is the hard question. Really, I am happy as is. I really do not need one more stop very often, nor do I need more reach very often.

I can se myself having a lot of fun with both these lenses. Which lens brings most use and fun to me and my family? Perhaps more reach beats one more stop.

I can understand adding new lenses to achieve more fun but still not seeing what fun you are going for.  The 100-400 is nice for wildlife and BIF. Do you shoot these?  The only other use I have found for my 100-400 for was high school baseball, so daylight sports on a larger field is another use if your kids plan to play that.  If you can get by with 280mm the 70-200 f/4IS reportedly handles 1.4x teleconverters well.

Since you mention your typical use is people/family/vacation and that you would need the extra reach only occasionally, the 70-200 2.8 II seems like the better choice. Your 70-200 f4 should also work pretty well for that though, with a much more travel-friendly weight. May I ask you what made you think of upgrading in the first place?

Very good question!

I have used my 70-200 f/4 IS all the time since 2007 and I really love it, fast, small and sharp.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is even sharper than my 70-200 f/4 IS. It is also 2x the price and weight.

I have used my 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-200 2.8 IS II for years and the IQ is so close I can't make a definitive call that the 2.8II is the sharper one.  Both are fantastic.

One reason for wanting one more stop is that my son plays tennis indoors in wintertime. ISOs are pushed to 3200-6400 or more. My son is not much into sports any more and it is likely he will stop playing tennis indoors very soon and then my primary need for a faster short tele lens goes away.

Assuming you are using your 6D for the tennis and not a crop, doesn't the 6D and the 70-200 f/4 handle 3200-6400 ISO well?  I shot high school basketball games with my 5DIII using my f/4 instead of my 2.8II just to see how it went and in these not-too-well-lit gyms with ISOs at 6400 and slightly higher the results were pretty good.  You also say your son is not likely to continue.

My other reasons wanting but not needing one stop more are:

• A faster shutter speed for freezing aktion, chasing kids running and sports.
• A f/2.8 lens makes my cameras AF works better and faster = a lot more keepers.
• It is essential in most low light situations in- and outdoors.
• For portraits with beautiful creamy bokeh. It adds more separation at all focal lengths
• I can use a lover ISO = Greater Dynamic range, less grain, better contrast, higher IQ.

Unless it is chasing kids and fast action in poorly lit indoors the 6D and f/4 should work.

The 2.8 may work better for AF however, I never had problems in this area with the f/4 70-200 IS on my 60D or 5DIII; haven't used it on my 6D enough yet to opine.

One stop is always nice but only time I ever found it essential was in shooting volleyball in poorly lit gyms (and sometimes 2.8 was even iffy).

Until I got the 2.8II I used the f4 IS 70-200 for portraits and it does a nice job.

Lower ISO is of course good if you find yourself light challenged enough when using your 70-200 f/4.  Of course the other option you are considering is slower still.

As good as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is do I really need it? Perhaps it is better not to sell my 70-200 f/4 IS and add the new 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II?

Sorry but you have a nice set of glass now and I'm not seeing where they are letting you down.  I'm afraid I am not seeing you really need either lens.  Of course this is coming from me, who has bought a number of lenses which it turned out I could have done without.  The pull of getting new stuff can be pretty strong.  Just my thoughts.

-- hide signature --

Best Regards
Pietro M
Stockholm