100-400II or 70-200II IS for Travel companion to 24-70II?

I currently have the 24-70II which is the main lens on my camera during travel. I usually take my 70-200 F2.8II IS to cover the tele range, however I'm wondering if the 100-400mm would actually be a better match. I think that having 70mm as the starting point on the longer lens is kinda redundant and having the extended reach of 200-400mm would offer a lot of new perspectives that I'm missing out on.

I think the 70-200 2.8 is great for portraits, but for travel (and possibly a safari) the 100-400 seems like a better alternative. They are similar in size (non-extended) and weight.

Is there something else that you would suggest? Thanks!

Really depends on what you would be shooting that requires a 400mm. There is not much point bringing a 400mm if you're like going to be shooting at that focal length once or twice a trip..

If you need something longer than 200mm, I would think the 70-300L is a much better choice as a travel telephoto since it is quite a bit more portable. I was very happy with it while I had it but sold it off as it was a little too short for birding.

Depends what sort of travel you intend to do. Unless you're going to be photographing wildlife (you did mention a safari) then I wouldn't take a 100-400. A good alternative is to stick with your 70-200 and put a 1.4x mkiii onto it... I've read some reviews that suggest this combination may be sharper than the 100-400 (albeit with slightly less reach)

Rose

I would also recommend the 70-300L as an ideal partner to the 24-70. In fact this is my most used lens combo and seems to cover all I need for travelling. I also keep a Kenko x1.4 TC in the bag and that adds a bit more reach, without having losing too much IQ.

The 70-300L is very small and light compared to the 70-200 and 100-400, much more suited to traveling IMO.Sharpenss wise it's better than my 70-200 f/4 IS, and the newer IS seems to be very efficient. It's easy to get 1/30 shots at 300mm with this lens.

1Dx4me wrote:

dave_bass5 wrote:

The 70-300L is very small and light compared to the 70-200 and 100-400, much more suited to traveling IMO.Sharpenss wise it's better than my 70-200 f/4 IS, and the newer IS seems to be very efficient. It's easy to get 1/30 shots at 300mm with this lens.

i am sorry but i totally disagree with your assessment and comparison of 70-300 L and 70-200 f4.0IS when it comes to IQ!!!! show me your best shot with 70-300 L and i'll show you my best shot with 70-200 f4.0IS at 200 FL. by the way, i think 70-300 L is a superb lens but not better than 4.0IS II!!! i have seen these baseless comparison between those 3 lenses with no evidence to substantiate those claims! also, the 70-200 f4.0IS has the 4 stop IS as well

Disagree all you like. As I currently own both lenses I know what I see. I have no need to prove anything to anyone, im just relaying when my eyes see.

I will agree the 70-300 isn't sharper in every respect, but overal I find the images from the 70-300 more pleasing and with a bit more punch.

Not sure what the 4.0IS II is.

1Dx4me wrote:

i agree with your assessment of 70-200 L lens being a bit short for travel! i have 24-70 f2.8II, had 70-200 f4.0 IS, and now have the 100-400 II. i would definitely consider 24-70II and 100-400 II because the 100-400 is not that larger and heavier that 70-200 IS II when zoom barrel is retracted and yest it gives you considerable reach and IQ, equal to the 200 IS II! i was considering the 70-300 L, which is a fine lens, but short of reach compare to 100-400! i have taken my 100-400II on a coastal trip in california, where you can find some beautiful birds of prey and deer, i felt it worked for me wonderfully! i will put my long 100-400II to good use this year and hopefully get a chance to post some shots in this forum

I tend to think you are right. I'm not so sure that the size savings of the 70-300 compared to the 100-400 is really that much of an advantage considering that the 100-400 offers much more reach, which is the main reason I'm wanting a change from the 70-200.

I have gone on several european cruises and have another scheduled for later this year. The long lens is nice for taking photos of the coast from the ship, which can often be quite a ways out. I don't usually carry it with me when doing local tours in town as that is where I mostly use the 24-70II.

Thanks for the advice!

dave_bass5 wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

i am sorry but i totally disagree with your assessment and comparison of 70-300 L and 70-200 f4.0IS when it comes to IQ!!!! show me your best shot with 70-300 L and i'll show you my best shot with 70-200 f4.0IS at 200 FL. by the way, i think 70-300 L is a superb lens but not better than 4.0IS II!!! i have seen these baseless comparison between those 3 lenses with no evidence to substantiate those claims! also, the 70-200 f4.0IS has the 4 stop IS as well

Disagree all you like. As I currently own both lenses I know what I see. I have no need to prove anything to anyone, im just relaying when my eyes see.

I will agree the 70-300 isn't sharper in every respect, but overal I find the images from the 70-300 more pleasing and with a bit more punch.

Not sure what the 4.0IS II is.

Perhaps he meant to put a space between the 4.0 and IS.

Perhaps we should all proof read our posts before hitting the post button.

Great shot!!

Ryanide wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

i agree with your assessment of 70-200 L lens being a bit short for travel! i have 24-70 f2.8II, had 70-200 f4.0 IS, and now have the 100-400 II. i would definitely consider 24-70II and 100-400 II because the 100-400 is not that larger and heavier that 70-200 IS II when zoom barrel is retracted and yest it gives you considerable reach and IQ, equal to the 200 IS II! i was considering the 70-300 L, which is a fine lens, but short of reach compare to 100-400! i have taken my 100-400II on a coastal trip in california, where you can find some beautiful birds of prey and deer, i felt it worked for me wonderfully! i will put my long 100-400II to good use this year and hopefully get a chance to post some shots in this forum

I tend to think you are right. I'm not so sure that the size savings of the 70-300 compared to the 100-400 is really that much of an advantage considering that the 100-400 offers much more reach, which is the main reason I'm wanting a change from the 70-200.

I have gone on several european cruises and have another scheduled for later this year. The long lens is nice for taking photos of the coast from the ship, which can often be quite a ways out. I don't usually carry it with me when doing local tours in town as that is where I mostly use the 24-70II.

Thanks for the advice!

I've taken several European river cruises and there were times when I wished that I had a 100-400 lens.