Canon 70 200 f4 Vs Canon 100 400 5.6

I have the Canon 70 200 f4 L and its probably the sharpest lens I have, including primes, but I recently bought a Sigma 120 400 and this seems much more of a useful focal length for what I do, take photos of my dog.

I'm thinking of selling both and getting a Canon 100 400 L. Anyone done the same and do you miss the 70 200?

Is a 150 600 Sigma Contemporary an even better option or too big?

Barry Reynolds wrote:

I have the Canon 70 200 f4 L and its probably the sharpest lens I have, including primes, but I recently bought a Sigma 120 400 and this seems much more of a useful focal length for what I do, take photos of my dog.

I'm thinking of selling both and getting a Canon 100 400 L. Anyone done the same and do you miss the 70 200?

Is a 150 600 Sigma Contemporary an even better option or too big?

The 100-400L is brilliant as long as you're ok with it's much larger size!!  I really love the 70-200 f/4 for it's easy to pack size

I tend to use the 70 200 f4 with a 1.4 extender but for my usage it's too big to carry around so even though it's small, it's not much more bother to carry a 100 400 L.

I'm put off slightly by the version 1 but also read the sigma contemporary 100 400 is better, although I'm not sure the colours would be

Trevor. 
To clarify, you have the 70-200 f/4 WITHOUT Image Stabilization. 
Comparing 100-400 L IS Version 1 with Push Pull zoom or the Version II with rotation zoom?

Nick5 wrote:

Trevor.
To clarify, you have the 70-200 f/4 WITHOUT Image Stabilization.
Comparing 100-400 L IS Version 1 with Push Pull zoom or the Version II with rotation zoom?

I have the 7-200 f/4 IS II and it doesn't really matter which version of the 100-400 as they are both much heavier and bulky.

Barry Reynolds wrote:

I tend to use the 70 200 f4 with a 1.4 extender but for my usage it's too big to carry around so even though it's small, it's not much more bother to carry a 100 400 L.

I'm put off slightly by the version 1 but also read the sigma contemporary 100 400 is better, although I'm not sure the colours would be

If you always use the 70-200 with the teleconverter then you will probably love the 100-400.    I have the 500 5.6 for when I want to go longer and that lens is nice and light for a 400 if you can live without a zoom.

It depends what matters to you more: if the IQ or the FL. IQ wise the EF 70-200/4 is clearly better (sharper with better contrast) than the EF 100-400/4-5.6. Even with the 1.4x TC the 70-200 is about the same sharp at 280mm as the 100-400 at 300mm.

So if the final 100mm between 300 and 400mm aren't crucial for you, I'd rather go for 70-200+1.4x.

Or may be save a bit more and go for the EF 100-400/4-5.6 mkII. It is really exceptionally good lens, clearly better than the original version I.

Keep your 70-200 over the original 100-400.  I have the original 70-200 and added the original 300/2.8.  The Canon EF 100-400 IS II could replace your 70-200, if you don't mind the size, weight, slower aperture, and less quality at 70-200.

Trevor Sowers wrote:

Nick5 wrote:

Trevor.
To clarify, you have the 70-200 f/4 WITHOUT Image Stabilization.
Comparing 100-400 L IS Version 1 with Push Pull zoom or the Version II with rotation zoom?

I have the 7-200 f/4 IS II and it doesn't really matter which version of the 100-400 as they are both much heavier and bulky.

Sorry Trevor. 
I meant to ask Barry, the OP. 
We are similar. I too have the 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II and Version 1 along with the 100-400 L IS Mark II. I did trade in the 100-400 L IS Version 1 Dust Pump towards the 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II. All three are fantastic. I kept the original 70-200 f/4 L IS Version because it’s sooo good. 
My 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II gets limited use as the smaller f/4 L IS options fit my needs for travel.

Yeah no IS on the 70 200 f4. I find I shoot at 200-300mm a lot with the converter I would like shoot above this for wildlife.

I find the range of the 70-200 not that much as I don't really use it below 120mm. It's super sharp but too big to be used as a prime with one hand but too small of a range to be useful for my dog running around.

I think I'll sell it and get a 100-400 Sigma contemporary

The 35/2 is as sharp as the 70/200 or very little difference but the 70/200 has been colours.

The 85mm isn't that sharp at 1.8 but even as f4, the 70-200 is slightly better but mostly it has better colours.

I bought it new but I have the 100mm f2 and that is a very sharp lens.

Trevor Sowers wrote:

Barry Reynolds wrote:

I have the Canon 70 200 f4 L and its probably the sharpest lens I have, including primes, but I recently bought a Sigma 120 400 and this seems much more of a useful focal length for what I do, take photos of my dog.

I'm thinking of selling both and getting a Canon 100 400 L. Anyone done the same and do you miss the 70 200?

Is a 150 600 Sigma Contemporary an even better option or too big?

The 100-400L is brilliant as long as you're ok with it's much larger size!! I really love the 70-200 f/4 for it's easy to pack size

I completely agree, the EF 100-400L II is a great lens but heavier than the 70-200 f4

Nick5 wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

Nick5 wrote:

Trevor.
To clarify, you have the 70-200 f/4 WITHOUT Image Stabilization.
Comparing 100-400 L IS Version 1 with Push Pull zoom or the Version II with rotation zoom?

I have the 7-200 f/4 IS II and it doesn't really matter which version of the 100-400 as they are both much heavier and bulky.

Sorry Trevor.
I meant to ask Barry, the OP.
We are similar. I too have the 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II and Version 1 along with the 100-400 L IS Mark II. I did trade in the 100-400 L IS Version 1 Dust Pump towards the 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II. All three are fantastic. I kept the original 70-200 f/4 L IS Version because it’s sooo good.
My 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II gets limited use as the smaller f/4 L IS options fit my needs for travel.

That makes a lot of sense.  The version 2 of the 70-200 f/4 doesn't add much if anything in image quality but I chose it for the slightly better IS and I really wanted the 72mm filter ring as I have a lot of filters and playing with step up rings is a PITA.

I have used the original 70-200 f4 on both FF and crop bodies, I don't think it is better than the EF 100-400L II between 100 to 200mm but that is just my opinion.  I think the newer 70-200 II is maybe a bit better than the original but that is just to my eyes.