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

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

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.

Those are great and less expensive alternatives Pietro.  Either, or both combined are economical ways to increase your range.  When I got a nice offer for my 5DIII I took it and purchased both a new 6D and new 70D and pocketed $250.  Got the 70D for $599 after rebate.  Haven't used it much yet but plan to take it on vacation to Costa Rica this spring.  You might also check out the Kenko teleconverters as many like them.

Tim