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

Pietro

A camera for the 100-400 lens should have a magnesium chassis

A Rebel's body is rather soft for that load (and now will start a storm...)

Old Greenlander wrote:

Pietro

A camera for the 100-400 lens should have a magnesium chassis

A Rebel's body is rather soft for that load (and now will start a storm...)

Old greenlander,

Rebel? I was thinking 70D is fast enough and have good/best IQ for a Canon APS-C. or 80D if it comes this spring. I do not think I need the 7D II.

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

Buchanan wrote:

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

Thanks Tim!

Well our needs changes quickly, now my son decided to continue to play floorball and tennis, both indoors and sadly, in very bad light.

He played tennis today and I managed to get some ok but grainy/noisy photos with my 6D and 70-200f/4L IS II. Both camera AF and lens was fast and snappy, AF was spot on all the time.

I shot in manual mode and I needed 12800 ISO for a shutter speed of 1/400 at f4.0. 12800 ISO makes very visible ISO noise, but not bad resembles beautiful grain in Tri-X B/W film. 6400 ISO looks a lot better/cleaner. At 25600 ISO noise is a little high for my taste but probably very nice in B/W.

Is this a real need for the 70-200f/2.8L IS II? Only we can decide if it is worth the cost to upgrade, but perhaps it is. More family debate for sure, but now I want one asap. Our son is 13 now and growing up fast. Time is not in our favour.

This evening over family dinner, as we spoke over possible places to visit this summer, my son says, why not a safari in Africa? And my wife says, Kruger Park, South Africa? Suddenly, Japan and Australia have serious competition as our family's top choice for summer vacation this year. I am all for it! The 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II must be a good safari lens.

Things really are changing quickly and now you have needs these lenses will fulfill. That must be a very, very, poorly lit indoor tennis venue. Very few gyms I shot were that bad; they on average would do 1/500 to 1/640 at 2.8 and 3200 ISO shooting basketball and volleyball with my prior 5DIII. Does sound like 2.8 is needed if you want good shots there now that he has decided to continue. Good to hear the 6D AF performed well; my kid is away at college now so no longer needed the 5DIII for indoor sports and why I now have the 6D. Really no longer have a regular use for my 70-200L 2.8II either since not shooting indoor sports, but it's such a nice lens I can't bring myself to part with it. Am sure the 100-400 II is great for safaris so I would go for it; seems everyone who has gotten it loves it.

Tim

Buchanan wrote:

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

Buchanan wrote:

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

Thanks Tim!

Well our needs changes quickly, now my son decided to continue to play floorball and tennis, both indoors and sadly, in very bad light.

He played tennis today and I managed to get some ok but grainy/noisy photos with my 6D and 70-200f/4L IS II. Both camera AF and lens was fast and snappy, AF was spot on all the time.

I shot in manual mode and I needed 12800 ISO for a shutter speed of 1/400 at f4.0. 12800 ISO makes very visible ISO noise, but not bad resembles beautiful grain in Tri-X B/W film. 6400 ISO looks a lot better/cleaner. At 25600 ISO noise is a little high for my taste but probably very nice in B/W.

Is this a real need for the 70-200f/2.8L IS II? Only we can decide if it is worth the cost to upgrade, but perhaps it is. More family debate for sure, but now I want one asap. Our son is 13 now and growing up fast. Time is not in our favour.

This evening over family dinner, as we spoke over possible places to visit this summer, my son says, why not a safari in Africa? And my wife says, Kruger Park, South Africa? Suddenly, Japan and Australia have serious competition as our family's top choice for summer vacation this year. I am all for it! The 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II must be a good safari lens.

Things really are changing quickly and now you have needs these lenses will fulfill. That must be a very, very, poorly lit indoor tennis venue. Very few gyms I shot were that bad; they on average would do 1/500 to 1/640 at 2.8 and 3200 ISO shooting basketball and volleyball with my prior 5DIII. Does sound like 2.8 is needed if you want good shots there now that he has decided to continue. Good to hear the 6D AF performed well; my kid is away at college now so no longer needed the 5DIII for indoor sports and why I now have the 6D. Really no longer have a regular use for my 70-200L 2.8II either since not shooting indoor sports, but it's such a nice lens I can't bring myself to part with it. Am sure the 100-400 II is great for safaris so I would go for it; seems everyone who has gotten it loves it.

Tim

Thanks Tim!

Yes it is poorly lit and very hard to get any really good photos. I can only shoot from the sides and 3m from above. If he plays on second och third court it is terrible having to shoot through separating 4m high nets.

I really hope that the large old gym, a former Swedish Royal Navy academy gym where he plays floorball is better lit. Perhaps my 70-200f/4L IS will do the job. Love this lens! Sharp, small and lightweight.

My 6D 12800 ISO is usable but I much prefer to use 6400 ISO or less. Really love my 6D and all my three lenses.

If we can find reasonable priced flights to/from South Africa, hotel/lodge and a good safari tour we will buy a 100-400f/4.5-5.6L II.

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

Old Greenlander wrote:

Pietro

A camera for the 100-400 lens should have a magnesium chassis

A Rebel's body is rather soft for that load (and now will start a storm...)

Old greenlander,

Rebel? I was thinking 70D is fast enough and have good/best IQ for a Canon APS-C. or 80D if it comes this spring. I do not think I need the 7D II.

Hi again Old greenlander,

Reading up on 7DII. Perhaps I should consider a 7DII for its much more advanced and faster AF.

p5freak wrote:

I didnt read the whole thread, so maybe it has been already said. Get the Canon x2 extender III for the 70-200L IS II f2.8. No need to buy the 100-400L anymore. If you need 400mm just use the extender.

Thanks p5freak!

Yes it has come up and it seems to be an alternative saving space, weight and money.

This is a short and much discussed Youtube review by Tony & Chelsea Northrup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9zWpihW8IE&ab_channel=TonyNorthrup

Many argue that the 2X TC degrades IQ to much, photos are soft, introduce CA and slows down the AF, others says it is great and works well.

Almost all agrees on that the 1.4X TC maintains IQ a lot better.

Two comparisons:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=687&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=972&FLIComp=2&CT=AVG

How is AF speed, contrast and CA affected by the 2X TC III?

Would you bring 70-200L IS II f2.8 and a 2X TC III for a long safari and vacation in Africa? Or buy a 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II?

I have 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8IS and 100-400L mk I and now mk II. I would say that get the 100-400 mkII as I use it all the time for sports etc. I find the 200mm not long enough. The mkII is much better than mk I but its also heavier.

gavin wrote:

I have 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8IS and 100-400L mk I and now mk II. I would say that get the 100-400 mkII as I use it all the time for sports etc. I find the 200mm not long enough. The mkII is much better than mk I but its also heavier.

Thank you Gavin!

First, Wow! Fantastic photos of people and city life all over the globe.

I actually stumbled upon your flicker photos a week ago, I was searching for examples of 100-400f/4.5-5.6 IS I and II using the short end for people and other things than birds and wildlife at 400mm.

On your flickr I notice that you use most of the range on your 100-400f/4.5-5.6 IS I. How is it at 100-200mm compared to your 70-200/2.8L IS? Is the new 100-400II better here too?

Do you ever bring both lenses when traveling? How well can 100-400f/4.5-5.6 IS II substitute the 70-200/2.8L IS in good light and not for photos needing f2.8 for low light or separation.

After buying the new 100-400f/4.5-5.6 IS II will you use your 70-200/2.8L IS the same as before or less?