Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS II vs Nikon 200-500mm 5.6G ED VR

Go to last post
I

Igor Sotelo

Leading Member
Messages
923
Solutions
1
Reaction score
226
Location
Montreal, CA
Was thinking about a second body with better high ISO performance, initially about the Canon 6D, but eventually started looking at Nikon lenses and why not have a Nikon body, which Sony’s sensors have solid performance, to take advantage of what Nikon offers and also have the impression Nikon works better with manual focus since they still sell them, opening a real possibility to use not so outrageously expensive Zeiss lenses, like the 2/135 APO Sonnar or the 2/100 Makro Plannar.

There are few Canon vs Nikon comparatives, and even less unbiased ones.

So what’s you opinion about the Canon 100-400 II vs Nikon 200-500? The Nikon is around $600 less expensive and the 100-200 range is already covered by my 70-200 and at only 2.8.

Also wanted to ask how the Canon 50mm 1.2L compares to the Nikon 50mm 1.4G?

Finally how does the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 different EF versions compare to the Nikon 14-24mm, not considering the 24-35 range since it would be covered by either the Sigma 24-35mm 2.0 or the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L II?
 
Igor Sotelo said:
Was thinking about a second body with better high ISO performance, initially about the Canon 6D, but eventually started looking at Nikon lenses and why not have a Nikon body, which Sony’s sensors have solid performance, to take advantage of what Nikon offers and also have the impression Nikon works better with manual focus since they still sell them, opening a real possibility to use not so outrageously expensive Zeiss lenses, like the 2/135 APO Sonnar or the 2/100 Makro Plannar.

There are few Canon vs Nikon comparatives, and even less unbiased ones. ...
Click to expand...
Here's an unbiased one:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/

and a direct comparison:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1210&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Nikon 200-500 has price/performance more similar to Sigma/Tamron xxx-500s

3rd party manual focus lenses like Zeiss you noted or old Nikons work just fine adapted to EF mount.

IMHO, YMMV

--
Unapologetic Canon Apologist :-)
 
Last edited:
Lemming51 said:
Igor Sotelo said:
Was thinking about a second body with better high ISO performance, initially about the Canon 6D, but eventually started looking at Nikon lenses and why not have a Nikon body, which Sony’s sensors have solid performance, to take advantage of what Nikon offers and also have the impression Nikon works better with manual focus since they still sell them, opening a real possibility to use not so outrageously expensive Zeiss lenses, like the 2/135 APO Sonnar or the 2/100 Makro Plannar.

There are few Canon vs Nikon comparatives, and even less unbiased ones. ...
Click to expand...
Here's an unbiased one:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/

and a direct comparison:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1210&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Nikon 200-500 has price/performance more similar to Sigma/Tamron xxx-500s

3rd party manual focus lenses like Zeiss you noted or old Nikons work just fine adapted to EF mount.

IMHO, YMMV
Click to expand...
Wow, it's quite a difference in sharpness or chromatic aberration. Do you think it would be so noticeable without pixel peeping? Curiously, DXOMark doesn't have the 100-400 II as particularly sharp, but it's rated much higher than the first generation lens.

I checked both lenses few hours ago, they are of similar construction and have seals at the mount. The 200-500 was a bit difficult to zoom, maybe because I zoomed holding the tripod handle at the same time. The finder of the Nikon DF looked dark, I'm not sure if it's because the battery just died or because the aperture is 5.6? The store was reasonably lit.

The 100-400 is almost like a 70-200 2.8, but didn't try it on a camera this time.
 
Igor Sotelo said:
Was thinking about a second body with better high ISO performance, initially about the Canon 6D, but eventually started looking at Nikon lenses and why not have a Nikon body, which Sony’s sensors have solid performance, to take advantage of what Nikon offers and also have the impression Nikon works better with manual focus since they still sell them, opening a real possibility to use not so outrageously expensive Zeiss lenses, like the 2/135 APO Sonnar or the 2/100 Makro Plannar.

There are few Canon vs Nikon comparatives, and even less unbiased ones.

So what’s you opinion about the Canon 100-400 II vs Nikon 200-500? The Nikon is around $600 less expensive and the 100-200 range is already covered by my 70-200 and at only 2.8.

Also wanted to ask how the Canon 50mm 1.2L compares to the Nikon 50mm 1.4G?

Finally how does the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 different EF versions compare to the Nikon 14-24mm, not considering the 24-35 range since it would be covered by either the Sigma 24-35mm 2.0 or the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L II?
Click to expand...
I had the 200-500 on the D500 the combo is second to none tack sharp, only downside is the weight, as for the 100-400 i had that as well equally as good but a lot more expensive.
 
Igor Sotelo said:
So what’s you opinion about the Canon 100-400 II vs Nikon 200-500? The Nikon is around $600 less expensive and the 100-200 range is already covered by my 70-200 and at only 2.8.
Click to expand...
Nothing against Nikon, especially their bodies, but in this case I'd definitely go for the Canon. The 100-400L II is thoroughly deserving of its L designation, whereas the Nikon is more of a very big consumer zoom. That's not really a criticism, as it is priced accordingly.

On specific features, the Canon weighs *much* less (1570 g vs 2300 g), is much smaller to pack in bag, and has a much closer minimum focusing distance. Maximum magnification is 0.31x, vs only 0.22x for the Nikon. Filter size is 77 mm, vs 95 mm for the Nikon, so the CPL which you may want is a lot cheaper (or you may already have one, as I did). They're both f/5.6 at the long end, but the Canon is 2/3 stop faster at the short end.

In any case I'd be reluctant to get into a second system unless there was a very clear benefit.

--

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/
or
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/stevebalcombe/popular-interesting/
 
Last edited:
The Canon EF 100-400L II IS has a much closer Minimum Focusing Distance, and better Maximum Magnification.

The Nikkor 200-500 is not only larger and heavier, but its zoom ring has a much longer travel distance, a truly clumsy beast. Plus, if one is accustomed to the way Canon zoom rings operate, be aware that Nikon zoom rings operate in the opposing direction.

Then, there is build quality. As has already been said, in an earlier reply, the Canon deserves its L title. The Nikon was aimed at its low-priced Tamron competitors.
 
The Nikon zoom that more-directly competes with the EF 100-400L II IS is the Nikkor 80-400G VR, which is a quite nice lens, but it cannot compete with the Canon in MFD, so the Canon is the better woods-walking lens, when one may wish to photograph a wee beastie appearing underfoot, or a bird in a tree, within moments of each other.

My wife and I, each, have a Nikon 80-400G VR, and I have an EF 100-400L II IS. She is envious of what the EF 100-400L II IS can do, at close range. She has to carry two lenses, to do what I can do with the EF 100-400L IS II, alone.

Canon has nothing to directly the Nikon 200-500mm, but that does not bother me, in the least. The Nikon 200-500 does have excellent optics, but it is a clumsy beast.
 
Igor Sotelo said:
Was thinking about a second body with better high ISO performance, initially about the Canon 6D, but eventually started looking at Nikon lenses and why not have a Nikon body, which Sony’s sensors have solid performance, to take advantage of what Nikon offers and also have the impression Nikon works better with manual focus since they still sell them, opening a real possibility to use not so outrageously expensive Zeiss lenses, like the 2/135 APO Sonnar or the 2/100 Makro Plannar.

There are few Canon vs Nikon comparatives, and even less unbiased ones.

So what’s you opinion about the Canon 100-400 II vs Nikon 200-500? The Nikon is around $600 less expensive and the 100-200 range is already covered by my 70-200 and at only 2.8.

Also wanted to ask how the Canon 50mm 1.2L compares to the Nikon 50mm 1.4G?

Finally how does the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 different EF versions compare to the Nikon 14-24mm, not considering the 24-35 range since it would be covered by either the Sigma 24-35mm 2.0 or the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L II?
Click to expand...
the other point that no one has mentioned is how nicely the canon 100400 II takes the TC 1.4 III, hardly any hit in IQ. I use mine quite often! here is an example:



07323cd6bda74cfca46f9ff4e5377be8.jpg



--
You miss 100 percent of the shots you didn't take!!! "Wayne Gretzky"
 
I think their future is uncertain
 
Last edited:
1Dx4me said:
Igor Sotelo said:
Was thinking about a second body with better high ISO performance, initially about the Canon 6D, but eventually started looking at Nikon lenses and why not have a Nikon body, which Sony’s sensors have solid performance, to take advantage of what Nikon offers and also have the impression Nikon works better with manual focus since they still sell them, opening a real possibility to use not so outrageously expensive Zeiss lenses, like the 2/135 APO Sonnar or the 2/100 Makro Plannar.

There are few Canon vs Nikon comparatives, and even less unbiased ones.

So what’s you opinion about the Canon 100-400 II vs Nikon 200-500? The Nikon is around $600 less expensive and the 100-200 range is already covered by my 70-200 and at only 2.8.

Also wanted to ask how the Canon 50mm 1.2L compares to the Nikon 50mm 1.4G?

Finally how does the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 different EF versions compare to the Nikon 14-24mm, not considering the 24-35 range since it would be covered by either the Sigma 24-35mm 2.0 or the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L II?
Click to expand...
the other point that no one has mentioned is how nicely the canon 100400 II takes the TC 1.4 III, hardly any hit in IQ. I use mine quite often! here is an example:

07323cd6bda74cfca46f9ff4e5377be8.jpg

--
You miss 100 percent of the shots you didn't take!!! "Wayne Gretzky"
Click to expand...
Nice photo, what settings did you use, if I could ask?
 
Rexgig0 said:
The Nikon zoom that more-directly competes with the EF 100-400L II IS is the Nikkor 80-400G VR, which is a quite nice lens, but it cannot compete with the Canon in MFD, so the Canon is the better woods-walking lens, when one may wish to photograph a wee beastie appearing underfoot, or a bird in a tree, within moments of each other.

My wife and I, each, have a Nikon 80-400G VR, and I have an EF 100-400L II IS. She is envious of what the EF 100-400L II IS can do, at close range. She has to carry two lenses, to do what I can do with the EF 100-400L IS II, alone.

Canon has nothing to directly the Nikon 200-500mm, but that does not bother me, in the least. The Nikon 200-500 does have excellent optics, but it is a clumsy beast.
Click to expand...
 
Igor Sotelo said:
1Dx4me said:
Igor Sotelo said:
Was thinking about a second body with better high ISO performance, initially about the Canon 6D, but eventually started looking at Nikon lenses and why not have a Nikon body, which Sony’s sensors have solid performance, to take advantage of what Nikon offers and also have the impression Nikon works better with manual focus since they still sell them, opening a real possibility to use not so outrageously expensive Zeiss lenses, like the 2/135 APO Sonnar or the 2/100 Makro Plannar.

There are few Canon vs Nikon comparatives, and even less unbiased ones.

So what’s you opinion about the Canon 100-400 II vs Nikon 200-500? The Nikon is around $600 less expensive and the 100-200 range is already covered by my 70-200 and at only 2.8.

Also wanted to ask how the Canon 50mm 1.2L compares to the Nikon 50mm 1.4G?

Finally how does the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 different EF versions compare to the Nikon 14-24mm, not considering the 24-35 range since it would be covered by either the Sigma 24-35mm 2.0 or the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L II?
Click to expand...
the other point that no one has mentioned is how nicely the canon 100400 II takes the TC 1.4 III, hardly any hit in IQ. I use mine quite often! here is an example:

07323cd6bda74cfca46f9ff4e5377be8.jpg
Click to expand...
Nice photo, what settings did you use, if I could ask?
Click to expand...
look at the EXIF info!

--
You miss 100 percent of the shots you didn't take!!! "Wayne Gretzky"
 
no. where did you get that?

i'd say equal. I have the 70-200 f4 II. I dont buy into having a focal range covered with another lens. that's noob thinking. lens theory. too much time on the internet and not enough in the field. I buy lenses that I use. and would not be without the 100-400 or the 70-200

--
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/edraderphotography/
 
Last edited:
Igor Sotelo said:
Rexgig0 said:
The Nikon zoom that more-directly competes with the EF 100-400L II IS is the Nikkor 80-400G VR, which is a quite nice lens, but it cannot compete with the Canon in MFD, so the Canon is the better woods-walking lens, when one may wish to photograph a wee beastie appearing underfoot, or a bird in a tree, within moments of each other.

My wife and I, each, have a Nikon 80-400G VR, and I have an EF 100-400L II IS. She is envious of what the EF 100-400L II IS can do, at close range. She has to carry two lenses, to do what I can do with the EF 100-400L IS II, alone.

Canon has nothing to directly the Nikon 200-500mm, but that does not bother me, in the least. The Nikon 200-500 does have excellent optics, but it is a clumsy beast.
Click to expand...
I think the 100-400mm II would make more sense if I didn’t have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, which has the 100-200 range at 2.8 and is much sharper.

On the other hand Nikon has it’s complete range over 200 and is less expensive too.
Click to expand...
if you had any or all of these lenses you comment about, you wouldn't be saying 70200 is sharper compared to 100400 II, or nikon complete range and cheaper and so on.... each lens in that range has its own world to be experienced, IMO.
 
1Dx4me said:
Igor Sotelo said:
Rexgig0 said:
The Nikon zoom that more-directly competes with the EF 100-400L II IS is the Nikkor 80-400G VR, which is a quite nice lens, but it cannot compete with the Canon in MFD, so the Canon is the better woods-walking lens, when one may wish to photograph a wee beastie appearing underfoot, or a bird in a tree, within moments of each other.

My wife and I, each, have a Nikon 80-400G VR, and I have an EF 100-400L II IS. She is envious of what the EF 100-400L II IS can do, at close range. She has to carry two lenses, to do what I can do with the EF 100-400L IS II, alone.

Canon has nothing to directly the Nikon 200-500mm, but that does not bother me, in the least. The Nikon 200-500 does have excellent optics, but it is a clumsy beast.
Click to expand...
I think the 100-400mm II would make more sense if I didn’t have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, which has the 100-200 range at 2.8 and is much sharper.

On the other hand Nikon has it’s complete range over 200 and is less expensive too.
Click to expand...
if you had any or all of these lenses you comment about, you wouldn't be saying 70200 is sharper compared to 100400 II, or nikon complete range and cheaper and so on.... each lens in that range has its own world to be experienced, IMO.

--
You miss 100 percent of the shots you didn't take!!! "Wayne Gretzky"
Click to expand...


aff350c1e57142ea88579d1631014777.jpg

Sorry for the low res iPhone SE photo.

DXO has the 100-400 II at 26 on a 5Ds, while the 70-200 2.8 II is at 33.

Tony Northrop has a video stating the 70-200 2.8 II is sharper than the 100-400 II, even on a 2X TC III. Which is in line with DXO scores?
 
1Dx4me said:
Igor Sotelo said:
1Dx4me said:
Igor Sotelo said:
Was thinking about a second body with better high ISO performance, initially about the Canon 6D, but eventually started looking at Nikon lenses and why not have a Nikon body, which Sony’s sensors have solid performance, to take advantage of what Nikon offers and also have the impression Nikon works better with manual focus since they still sell them, opening a real possibility to use not so outrageously expensive Zeiss lenses, like the 2/135 APO Sonnar or the 2/100 Makro Plannar.

There are few Canon vs Nikon comparatives, and even less unbiased ones.

So what’s you opinion about the Canon 100-400 II vs Nikon 200-500? The Nikon is around $600 less expensive and the 100-200 range is already covered by my 70-200 and at only 2.8.

Also wanted to ask how the Canon 50mm 1.2L compares to the Nikon 50mm 1.4G?

Finally how does the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 different EF versions compare to the Nikon 14-24mm, not considering the 24-35 range since it would be covered by either the Sigma 24-35mm 2.0 or the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L II?
Click to expand...
the other point that no one has mentioned is how nicely the canon 100400 II takes the TC 1.4 III, hardly any hit in IQ. I use mine quite often! here is an example:

07323cd6bda74cfca46f9ff4e5377be8.jpg
Click to expand...
Nice photo, what settings did you use, if I could ask?
Click to expand...
look at the EXIF info!
Click to expand...
Just saw how, I seldom use my notebook :)
 
Igor Sotelo said:
1Dx4me said:
Igor Sotelo said:
Rexgig0 said:
The Nikon zoom that more-directly competes with the EF 100-400L II IS is the Nikkor 80-400G VR, which is a quite nice lens, but it cannot compete with the Canon in MFD, so the Canon is the better woods-walking lens, when one may wish to photograph a wee beastie appearing underfoot, or a bird in a tree, within moments of each other.

My wife and I, each, have a Nikon 80-400G VR, and I have an EF 100-400L II IS. She is envious of what the EF 100-400L II IS can do, at close range. She has to carry two lenses, to do what I can do with the EF 100-400L IS II, alone.

Canon has nothing to directly the Nikon 200-500mm, but that does not bother me, in the least. The Nikon 200-500 does have excellent optics, but it is a clumsy beast.
Click to expand...
I think the 100-400mm II would make more sense if I didn’t have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, which has the 100-200 range at 2.8 and is much sharper.

On the other hand Nikon has it’s complete range over 200 and is less expensive too.
Click to expand...
if you had any or all of these lenses you comment about, you wouldn't be saying 70200 is sharper compared to 100400 II, or nikon complete range and cheaper and so on.... each lens in that range has its own world to be experienced, IMO.
Click to expand...
aff350c1e57142ea88579d1631014777.jpg

Sorry for the low res iPhone SE photo.

DXO has the 100-400 II at 26 on a 5Ds, while the 70-200 2.8 II is at 33.

Tony Northrop has a video stating the 70-200 2.8 II is sharper than the 100-400 II, even on a 2X TC III. Which is in line with DXO scores?
Click to expand...
One can go into bankruptcy, pursuing the sharpest lens. Do your eyes see a real difference, in the images, at realistic image sizes?

DxO is but one source of information, about sharpness, and not everyone agrees with DxO methodology, anyway.

One can tire of the pursuit of sharpness, and decide that “character” might me more artful. In 2018, I bought a Zeiss Otus. Sharp! In 2019, however, I bought a Leica Thambar-M 90mm lens. Put that one onto a search engine. ;-)

There are times I want sharp, and times I want character.

This is a wonderful time to be a photographer. :-)





--
By accident of availability, I learned to use Canon and Nikon DSLRs at the same time. I love specific lenses made by both Canon and Nikon, too much to quit either system. Dabbling with Leica-M is fun, too. I am, certainly, not an expert.
 
Igor Sotelo said:
1Dx4me said:
Igor Sotelo said:
Rexgig0 said:
The Nikon zoom that more-directly competes with the EF 100-400L II IS is the Nikkor 80-400G VR, which is a quite nice lens, but it cannot compete with the Canon in MFD, so the Canon is the better woods-walking lens, when one may wish to photograph a wee beastie appearing underfoot, or a bird in a tree, within moments of each other.

My wife and I, each, have a Nikon 80-400G VR, and I have an EF 100-400L II IS. She is envious of what the EF 100-400L II IS can do, at close range. She has to carry two lenses, to do what I can do with the EF 100-400L IS II, alone.

Canon has nothing to directly the Nikon 200-500mm, but that does not bother me, in the least. The Nikon 200-500 does have excellent optics, but it is a clumsy beast.
Click to expand...
I think the 100-400mm II would make more sense if I didn’t have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, which has the 100-200 range at 2.8 and is much sharper.

On the other hand Nikon has it’s complete range over 200 and is less expensive too.
Click to expand...
if you had any or all of these lenses you comment about, you wouldn't be saying 70200 is sharper compared to 100400 II, or nikon complete range and cheaper and so on.... each lens in that range has its own world to be experienced, IMO.
Click to expand...
aff350c1e57142ea88579d1631014777.jpg

Sorry for the low res iPhone SE photo.

DXO has the 100-400 II at 26 on a 5Ds, while the 70-200 2.8 II is at 33.

Tony Northrop has a video stating the 70-200 2.8 II is sharper than the 100-400 II, even on a 2X TC III. Which is in line with DXO scores?
Click to expand...
i for one have never cared for charts, graphs, and numbers, but rather my eyes tell me the truth! and my eyes tell me that canon 100400 II is sharp and fits the high standard of "L" lenses! i rate canon's 300 f2.8 II the sharpest lens i have ever seen but i also rate my zeiss 100 f2.0 makro planner, TSE 24 f3.5 II very very close. i have never paid any attention to DXO evaluations and "scores", just not interested and won't purchase gear based on their recommendation.

--
You miss 100 percent of the shots you didn't take!!! "Wayne Gretzky"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Canon RF 100-400mm f5.6-8 IS USM or Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
R2D2
R2D2
L
Canon M50 + Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM IS ii
Replies
9
Views
274
Beetles
Beetles
M
  • Question Question
Select AF when using Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM.
Replies
7
Views
8
Andy01
Andy01
studio460
Nikon Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S:
Replies
16
Views
404
studio460
studio460
D
Canon RF 100-400mm F/5.6-8 IS USM vs adapted EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS USM Mark I?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Sittatunga
S

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top