Canon70-200 IS L or 100-400 IS L?

[Methanol]

I recently had my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L stolen at a press conference. :ranting: So, I'm looking for a replacement lens. I was just about to replace it, when I thought :idea: what about the 100-400 IS L, can I live with the 1-2 stop drop ? :scratchchin: What say you guys?

By the way anyone looking to sell any of the above?

Cheers,

Methanol

[poah]

what do you use it for. I'd rather have the 70-200 IS than the 100-400 (would liek both though)

[Methanol]

Photojournalism. I would have liked both, but too much to carry with all the other stuff, I'll be walking at 45º

[Podie]

Methanol... there's some stuff about the 100-400 IS lens here... www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=181413&f=109&h=0

(although I was asking about it's little brother!)

[Methanol]

Hi Podi,

Thx for that mate, by the looks of it you were kind of in the same boat as I'm in now; although I see you are sorted now.

Are you going to any of the race meets this weekend? I'm thinking of going myself.

btw, can you email me YP's No. plz if you have it.

Cheers,

Methanol

[Bee_Jay]

If I were you, for P-J work it's definitely the 70-200 2.8 IS L.

Get youself a 2x teleconverter (or even just a 1.4x) and then you will have a much lighter alternative to the 100-400L with the benefit of 2.8 without the converter when you need it. rex has just gone for this combo (picking it up for him when I am in the US next week) and I will most likely do the same.

[Methanol]

I just can't believe I missed that, of course a tele what was I thinking.

Thx a lot mate.

Edited to say:

Actually I know why I didn't think of the tele route; I'm going to loose the sharpness and focus speed. Back to the drawing-board. It may just have to be two lenses.

>> Edited by Methanol on Thursday 26th May 13:38

[Podie]

Methanol said:

Hi Podi, Thx for that mate, by the looks of it you were kind of in the same boat as I'm in now; although I see you are sorted now. Are you going to any of the race meets this weekend? I'm thinking of going myself. btw, can you email me YP's No. plz if you have it. Cheers, Methanol

At the Cricket this weekend, giving it at Lords... will be at next month's meet though.

Will send you YP's number..

[srider]

Bee_Jay said:

If I were you, for P-J work it's definitely the 70-200 2.8 IS L. Get youself a 2x teleconverter (or even just a 1.4x) and then you will have a much lighter alternative to the 100-400L with the benefit of 2.8 without the converter when you need it. rex has just gone for this combo (picking it up for him when I am in the US next week) and I will most likely do the same.

Actually, the 70-200+tc weighs more than the 100-400

[srider]

Methanol said:

I recently had my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L stolen at a press conference. So, I'm looking for a replacement lens. I was just about to replace it, when I thought what about the 100-400 IS L, can I live with the 1-2 stop drop ? What say you guys? By the way anyone looking to sell any of the above? Cheers, Methanol

I could be persuaded to part with my 100-400..........

Drop me an email if you're interested.

[Bee_Jay]

srider said:

Bee_Jay said: If I were you, for P-J work it's definitely the 70-200 2.8 IS L. Get youself a 2x teleconverter (or even just a 1.4x) and then you will have a much lighter alternative to the 100-400L with the benefit of 2.8 without the converter when you need it. rex has just gone for this combo (picking it up for him when I am in the US next week) and I will most likely do the same. Actually, the 70-200+tc weighs more than the 100-400

Yes, but it would be faster, with a greater range.

I was amazed to find out that the 70-200 is heavier than the 100-400 (1.47kg vs 1.385 !!!!)

Certainly lighter than carrying both..

and you end up with a 70-400 2.8-5.6 combo - nice

[joust]

I can recommend the 70-200 with the 2x extender.

The combination seems to be the best of both worlds.....

J

[Podie]

joust said:

... with the 2x extender. J

What these extender thingies..?

[simpo two]

Podie said:

What these extender thingies..?

Also known as teleconverters or TCs, they fit between the lens and camera body and increase the focal length of the lens, usually by 1.4x or 2x. The downside is that they reduce maximum aperture, but they're a cheaper way to get lots of mm.

[Methanol]

Hi Podie,

Here is a link mate: [url]www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/ef_lenses/extenders/index.asp[/url]

They are ok, but you are going to loose either one stop of light if using the 1.4X or two stops when using 2X. You are also going to loose a little sharpness. The upside; you increase your range. Oh... if you set an aperture above f/5.6 you loose your autofocus.

Methanol.

[Bee_Jay]

Methanol said:

Oh... if you set an aperture above f/5.6 you loose your autofocus.

Apparently not, if you have a 1-series body, they will focus at f8...

One day, that 1DsII will be mine...

[Methanol]

Bee_Jay said:

Apparently not, if you have a 1-series body, they will focus at f8... One day, that 1DsII will be mine...

You are quite right; however, Podi I think has a 300D unless his upgraded, have you Podi?

[Podie]

Methanol / Simpo Two... thanks for the info.

Think I've got a way to go yet before I start troubling you for advice on buying one of these..!!

[simpo two]

Podie said:

Methanol / Simpo Two... thanks for the info.

Thought: if you had a Mac would you be 'iPodie'?

[Podie]

simpo two said:

Podie said: Methanol / Simpo Two... thanks for the info. Thought: if you had a Mac would you be 'iPodie'?

Actually, don't joke...

At one point I considered setting up my own business, before I entered corporate monotony... the name I chose..?

i-Pod

No kidding, had the hyphen.. and I've still go the original logo designs at home... which pre-date Apple's use of the name by about two years.

Kicking myself for not registering it now...