canon 70 200 f2.8 L or 100 400 f4.5- 5.6 IS L

[gf350]

After much thought I've bought myself a new canon 70-200 f2.8 L and a Canon 1.4x L extender. Then someone offered me a second hand (about 1 year old) canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS L at a good price so I bought that too.
I'd love to keep both but am not sure I'm likely to use both of them?
I thought the 70 - 200 would be the better bet and then I could use the 1.4x extender and buy a 2x extender also.
The 100-400 has IS which now I've seen it work I really like it.
Anyone got any experience with both of these? Whats the best one to keep? I'm planning on doing a bit of motorsport photography.
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Oh, I'm using a 20d if that makes a differnce.

[imperialism2024]

gf350 said:

After much thought I've bought myself a new canon 70-200 f2.8 L and a Canon 1.4x L extender. Then someone offered me a second hand (about 1 year old) canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS L at a good price so I bought that too.
I'd love to keep both but am not sure I'm likely to use both of them?
I thought the 70 - 200 would be the better bet and then I could use the 1.4x extender and buy a 2x extender also.
The 100-400 has IS which now I've seen it work I really like it.
Anyone got any experience with both of these? Whats the best one to keep? I'm planning on doing a bit of motorsport photography.
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Oh, I'm using a 20d if that makes a differnce.

Well, considering the great feedback I've heard from the 100-400, I'd recommend keeping that...

[elliotdavies]

the problem that appears sometimes with the 1-400 is that the pump zoom seems to put dust on the sensor
id still say for m-sports it has to be the 1-400 lens to keep

I have a 70-200 f4 and a 300L IS prime, both get used for motorsports with the x1.4 extender too
ive found that beside a track a lens more than 300mm is required

see my pics here www.pbase.com/elliot_d

Edited by elliotdavies on Sunday 6th August 08:12

[Gemm]

Does 20D provide better AF performance with f2.8 (or larger) lenses like 1 series does? (i.e. using centre cross-type AF sensor) Then that's one thing to consider. And if you think the use of f2.8 will be beneficial for any situations (not necessarily just for motorsports), then that's another thing to consider too.

Edited by Gemm on Sunday 6th August 08:46

[john57]

We've got both - the 70-200 f2.8 is probably the best zoom Canon make and it's image quality is the same if not better at 200mm than our 200 f2.8 prime ! It really is a special lens.

The 100-400 is also a good lens but not as much so as the 70-200. The push pull zoom is an aquired taste and one I personally don't like. We have had no dust issues at all and have had it for 3 years.

Re the focusing - I don't believe the 70-200 will focus quicker on a 20D .... it's only the 1 series cameras that take advantage of this and believe me it can focus very quickly indeed !!!

The 100-400 focus speed is OK but nowhere near the 70-200 no matter what camera it's used on.

Re the extenders on the 70-200 (on a 20D they won't work well with the 100-400). The image quality with the 1.4x is almost as good as without. The 2x degrades image quality but not so much as it is bad; just that it is not as good at '400mm' as the 100-400 is at 400mm. The 1.4x is also a great size and doesn't upset the balance of the lens/camera whereas the 2x is quite a bit bigger.

I would keep both - but I would say that as we already have them. I would imagine the 70-200 will be a bit short for motorsports (but I don't take that sort of photo) as opposed to the 100-400 but the 70-200 f2.8 is IMO the superior lens.

Hope this helps

Edited by john57 on Sunday 6th August 10:21

[V6GTO]

john57 said:

stuff

That's a great insight...thanks.

Martin.

[tog]

If you don't think you'll use the full 400mm focal length much, then keep the 70-200 (definitely the better lens) and get the 2x extender for occasional use, but if you'll definitely need the length regularly then keep the 100-400. Alternatively, have you thought of trading it in for the cheaper, lighter and sharper 400/5.6 prime?

[flameop]

20D and 30D have same AF point in the centre as the 1ds but you need a 2.8 or less lens for it to kick in.. it's only the centre point unlike the 1ds.

s

[monkeyhanger]

I have a 20D and 95% + of my work is Motorsport.

I have a 100-400L, a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which gets used with a 2x TC quite a bit. I can guarantee that if you sell either lens then you will find yourself needing it sooner or later. If you can afford to keep both then do so

The 100-400L will walk all over the 70-200 with 2xTC.

Edited by monkeyhanger on Sunday 6th August 18:38

[gf350]

Thanks all, I'll keep both, I was just thinking a 24-70 f2.8 or a 24-105 f4 would be more useful as the only other lens I've got is a Tokina 28-200 but I can always get one of those later on.
I used the 100-400 at Thruxton on the weekend and found the 400 end very useful.
I totally agree with the comment about the push pull zoom, I don't like it much either on a lens that big at least, the focus ring gets in the way a bit too. Maybe having it on a monopod didn't help though.
As I had a monopod I didn't really use the IS much but I can see it being useful in the future.
The focusing is very fast, unlike the 75-300 IS lens my mate had, he was having major problems with it hunting around.
The 70-200 still hasn't been delivered yet, it seems to have been discontinued so maybe there is a stock problem which would of course solve the problem.
I've just bought a 2x extender as well, this has been an expensive month.
Thanks again.
GF.

Edited by gf350 on Monday 7th August 21:46

[poah]

I think the push-pull zoom is ace particularly for motorsport. never found the focus ring to get in the way at all. in fact when I went back to a normal zoom I did not like it.

[le gravy noire]

elliotdavies said:

the problem that appears sometimes with the 1-400 is that the pump zoom seems to put dust on the sensor
id still say for m-sports it has to be the 1-400 lens to keep

I have a 70-200 f4 and a 300L IS prime, both get used for motorsports with the x1.4 extender too
ive found that beside a track a lens more than 300mm is required

see my pics here www.pbase.com/elliot_d

Edited by elliotdavies on Sunday 6th August 08:12

I keep hearing this and as far as I'm aware that is a technical impossibility because there is a rear lens element situated between the push pull and the camera sensor. The reported dust problem is inside the lens, not on the sensor. Of all the people I know who have the 100-400L or reviews ive read, I've never heard of anyone actually having the dust problem, which leads me to believe it is entirely apocryphal.

Re the 70-200 lens. I personally wouldnt keep it. On the grounds that (strictly IMO):

Its an awkward length for a lens. 70 is too long and 200 is too short. You will find yourself always wishing it could go a bit wider or had a bit more reach at the other end. Its fine if you spend your time shooting exclusively in that range (ie you are a wedding photographer) but you will actaully spend your time thinking "I wish I could zoom in more" not "Isnt this lens fantastic". I did a couple of shoots with both lenses and the 70-200 stayed in the bag after the first 10 minutes.

It weighs a f*cking ton.

People keep talking about the exceptional image quality and speed of focus etc, but does anyone here honestly think that they are at the level that this will be the deciding factor in whether their photo goes on the wall or in the bin?

I personally think that the 100-400 is a far more practical choice, and if you find that its image quality etc. isnt upto scratch, its because of user error. If one uses a 20d and wants better image quality then its time to step upto a more modern body.

Matt

[le gravy noire]

ps. For motorsport the 70-200 is too short anyway.

[Gemm]

le gravy noire said:

ps. For motorsport the 70-200 is too short anyway.

I use 70-200 for motorsport, but I wouldn't say it's too short.

[john57]

le gravy noire said:

elliotdavies said:

the problem that appears sometimes with the 1-400 is that the pump zoom seems to put dust on the sensor
id still say for m-sports it has to be the 1-400 lens to keep

I have a 70-200 f4 and a 300L IS prime, both get used for motorsports with the x1.4 extender too
ive found that beside a track a lens more than 300mm is required

see my pics here www.pbase.com/elliot_d

Edited by elliotdavies on Sunday 6th August 08:12

Re the 70-200 lens

It weighs a f*cking ton.

People keep talking about the exceptional image quality and speed of focus etc, but does anyone here honestly think that they are at the level that this will be the deciding factor in whether their photo goes on the wall or in the bin?


Matt

It weighs a ton - agreed .... but all the 'white' lenses have a slight weight issue

Re the bit about the image quality being important and necessary at ones 'level' .... the answer is yes, my wife is a professional photographer and we have a business where image quality is paramount and jobs are lost through inferior quality images. Just because someone posts on PH doesn't mean they are only into cars !!

The 100-400 is good but the 70-200 is better in this respect. The 70-200 has returned consistently better images for us but as you say, it's range is limited. For what we do it's fine but for others the 100-400 may well be the best option. As I said in my previous post I would keep both.

[le gravy noire]

john57 said:

Re the bit about the image quality being important and necessary at ones 'level' .... the answer is yes, my wife is a professional photographer and we have a business where image quality is paramount and jobs are lost through inferior quality images. Just because someone posts on PH doesn't mean they are only into cars !!

Thats interesting...I'd have thought that if quality is such an issue you wouldnt be shooting with a canon dslr anyway. Surely if ultimate quality is the make or break for you surely a mf system or a view camera with a multishot back would be a better bet? I dont understand what you mean about posting on PH and only being into cars...

My point is simply this. If you had a hypothetical, well-exposed, stunningly composed photo can you ever imagine anyone going "tsk that looks like it was shot with one of those 100-400 lenses...tut tut should have used a 70-200...the quality is much better!"

Matt

[monkeyhanger]

Gemm said:

le gravy noire said:

ps. For motorsport the 70-200 is too short anyway.

I use 70-200 for motorsport, but I wouldn't say it's too short.

Depends on what sort of Motorsport you're shooting.

The 70-200 f2.8 is a cracking lens for Rallying, but for general trackside work it's too short for most UK Circuits. There are a few spots on circuits where it would be usable but the 100-400 will also cover most of them.

[dcw@pr]

le gravy noire said:

john57 said:

Re the bit about the image quality being important and necessary at ones 'level' .... the answer is yes, my wife is a professional photographer and we have a business where image quality is paramount and jobs are lost through inferior quality images. Just because someone posts on PH doesn't mean they are only into cars !!

Thats interesting...I'd have thought that if quality is such an issue you wouldnt be shooting with a canon dslr anyway. Surely if ultimate quality is the make or break for you surely a mf system or a view camera with a multishot back would be a better bet? I dont understand what you mean about posting on PH and only being into cars...

My point is simply this. If you had a hypothetical, well-exposed, stunningly composed photo can you ever imagine anyone going "tsk that looks like it was shot with one of those 100-400 lenses...tut tut should have used a 70-200...the quality is much better!"

Matt

you're missing the point, it's about getting the maximum out of your equipment. You having the SLR you do and using the 100-400 is a waste of your money. You might as well be using a Nikon.

[le gravy noire]

dcw@pr said:

le gravy noire said:

john57 said:

Re the bit about the image quality being important and necessary at ones 'level' .... the answer is yes, my wife is a professional photographer and we have a business where image quality is paramount and jobs are lost through inferior quality images. Just because someone posts on PH doesn't mean they are only into cars !!

Thats interesting...I'd have thought that if quality is such an issue you wouldnt be shooting with a canon dslr anyway. Surely if ultimate quality is the make or break for you surely a mf system or a view camera with a multishot back would be a better bet? I dont understand what you mean about posting on PH and only being into cars...

My point is simply this. If you had a hypothetical, well-exposed, stunningly composed photo can you ever imagine anyone going "tsk that looks like it was shot with one of those 100-400 lenses...tut tut should have used a 70-200...the quality is much better!"

Matt

you're missing the point, it's about getting the maximum out of your equipment. You having the SLR you do and using the 100-400 is a waste of your money. You might as well be using a Nikon.

As usual YOU are missing the point...you having the slr you do and spending all your time taking photos of ugly people in churches is a waste of money.

[poah]

le gravy noire said:

ps. For motorsport the 70-200 is too short anyway.

not at knockhill