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

sigxbill wrote:

kevindar wrote:

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

Thanks a lot kevindar!

For sharing your invaluable owner experience and your flickr link.

My original plan was to upgrade my 70-200f/4L IS to the 70-200f/2.8L IS II last year. Then came the 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II and it made me think. Do I want two big & heavy lenses? Yes if I really have a real use for them.

• Q1 How important will the one stop faster 70-200f/2.8L IS II become if and when my son stops playing all indoor sports?
• Q2 Other than indoors, what are the most important advantages of the 70-200f/2.8L IS II making it worth the cost and weight over the 70-200f/4L IS?
• Q3 I will likely only bring one tele zoom on my vacations. Which one is the best for most family vacations?
• Q4 How often do you use your 100-400f/4.5-5.6L MK I, 70-200f/4L IS and 70-200f/2.8L IS II?

My wife argues quality over quantity and is still for upgrading 70-200f/4L IS to 70-200f/2.8L IS II a lens FL that is used a lot first rader than spending the same money on 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II a speciality lens for wildlife and birding and general longer reach that has no 70-99mm and is a little slower at 100mm f4.5 than my current f4 lens. As you point out "not great for family/portrait"

Our son has stopped playing fotboll/soccer so no more outdoors sports for now. Very likely he will quit all sports but tennis outdoors very soon.

Pietro, you are welcome.

1. for outdoor use, the f4 in most circumstances is fast enough. outdoor night games, the 2.8 may be susleful.

2. Not much. the 2.8II version does better with 2x III extenders, giving you option of a 400 5.6L with good IS. image quality is pretty decent, tracking is slow. it also give you a bit better background isolation (DOF control)

3. I have never taken either one on vacations. I have taken the 70-200 F4L and 70-300L on separate vacations. I rarely find that I need to shoot longer that 105 when I am on vacation, unless I am specifically doing a wild life one, in which case the 100-400L would be more useful. I travel with the 24-105 and a fast prime (35 1.4, or 50 1.4) and then often with a 16-35, b/c thats the style of my Shooting. These days, honestly, I often take my sony a6000 mirrorless as my primary walk around vacation camera with a 35 1.8, 16-50, and often the 55-210.

4. The 100-400L gets the most use these days, b/c as you saw on my website, I shoot a lot of hummers. however, lightroom tells me over the last 6 years, I have about 10K photos with 70-200 2.8 IS, and 5600 with 100-400L. when the kids where very young, and before I became interested in wildlife, the 70-200 2.8II got a lot of use. the F4L IS does not get much use, and I may end up selling it.

Now, for indoor, its reasonable to go with a fast prime, such as a 50 1.4, or 85 1.8. gets you more light, is smaller and lighter, very fast focusing, and you can often control indoor family shooting by moving your feet. IS is not that useful for people photography at 85 mm, indoors.

I dont know if you have any fast primes (you may have mentioned in your original post) that you can use for family shots and travelling. also you will find the majority of people who use the 100-400L are generally either glued at 400, or are using the longer end of it. Of my 5600 100-400L lightroom images, about 220 are shot under 200 mm, to give you some idea. so the difference between starting at 70 vs 100 for most does not make much difference.

I just wanted to add that I think Kevindar makes some really good points.

1. Agreed

3. I rarely need telephoto on vacation either. Usually my goal is to capture my family in the vacation setting - which is going to be closer to 35mm wide angle than telephoto - unless they are doing something like surfing.

I shoot my kids in sports a lot! For Volleyball, I find that a fast 50mm prime is best. For basketball, fast 100mm. No need for a 70-200 for indoor sports for me, at least not currently. For family shots around home, 50mm. I just shot my friend's new years party and found my 35mm prime most useful, and 50mm for effect but less use. And even though both lenses are fast, most shots were at f/4.

I agree that most tele zooms are shot at longest end most of the time - and your resulting conclusion.

I saw a post on here once entitled, "Fast Glass is Overrated", and to some degree, I agree with that statement. As most of my glass is fast, I find that I have to make a conscious effort to stop down to get the shots I want, despite the temptation to shoot wide open all the time ...

Good luck

Thanks Bill,

I really agree, primes are faster, smaller and can be inexpensive and are often just as good or better compared to most zooms but also less versatile. Canon 35f/2 IS + 100f/2 makes a good team, sharp inexpensive, small and light.

Today my son decided to continue to play both tennis and floorball indoors tennis is in really bad light. For tennis the local tennis club has 5 parallel tennis courts in one building. I can not get close or stand on the same level as the payers. I am using 150-200mm even wanting longer, f4, ISO 12800, 1/400s. One more stop would be very useful for a faster shutter speed or lower ISO.

For floorball I will know the conditions when I go there next week. Here, I probably can get closer, but the game shifts very fast, going from side to side in seconds. I will try both my 24-70f/2.8L II and my 70-200f/4L IS and hope the light is better here.

At the dinner table this evening, a safari in Africa became our first choice for our summer vacation. I think the 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II is a good lens for a safari. If we decide for a safari, we will buy this lens and also upgrade our old 20D to a new APS-C XXD for even better reach and pixel density.

Thanks for good advice!