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

jitteringjr wrote:

I'm really battling over this too. I have the 70-200/4 IS and there are times I want faster and times I want longer. However unless I hit the lottery that I don't play, I wont be able to afford both the 70-200/2.8 II and 100-400 II and I would like to keep the 70-200/4 IS for the light weight needed times.

So for ~ $2200, I could get the 100-400 II and keep the 70-200/4 IS. Or for about the same money, I could sell the 70-200/4 IS and buy the 70-200/2.8 II and both the 1.4 and 2.0X TC's. Or for less I could skip the 2x TC and just crop the difference from 280mm to 400 equivalent. I would allow me to keep the f4 shutter speed. How well is the AF with extenders with the 70-200/2.8 IS for outdoor sports in better light? Clearly it's not going to be as fast as the 100-400 II, but would it be adequate in outdoor sports uses?

The 70-200/2.8 IS II with a 2x tc will not be as sharp as the 100-400 at 400, but the 100-400 can't do 2.8. I just need to decide which is more important to me.

Hello jitteringjr,

My family is still discussing, but must probably we are also coming to the same conclusion. Our 70-200 f/4L IS is good enough for our real needs, it is also smaller and half the weight.

We will perhaps buy a second hand 1.4x tc III for our 70-200 f/4L IS. If we do not like it, we can sell it and get most of our money back. Alternatively and more likely, we will upgrade our old 20D to a 70D or the next model for more pixel density and better IQ to get APS-C 112-320mm reach.