Camera Labs

Hi guys and galls,
I am looking at getting my first L series lens and am bit stuck on a choice of two, was hoping for some feedback from people who own them or preferably own both.
I can't decide between the 100-400mm f4-5.6 IS L or a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L and a 2x teleconverter. I can't afford a new mark II version of the 70-200 so I would be buying second hand, preferably from a dealer rather than e-bay.

My thinking is the 70-200 with the TC would still give me f5.6 at 400mm, the same as the 100-400, but would I lose some image quality using the TC?
The 70-200 used without the TC would be a much more versatile bit of kit I think.

Which should I go for, bearing in mind I probably won't be able to afford another lens like it for several years. Oh and I want to use the lens for wildlife and sports photography mainly, and I do really want the 400mm reach, and its going to be stuck on the front of a 550d.

_________________
My Stuff: Canon 550d, 18-55mm kit lens, 50mm f1.8, Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro, Tamron 70-300mm (never buy one of these EVER), and a whole bag of other gadgets, filters, flashguns etc.
My Flickr Photostream

I think the question should reduce to the following: do you think you will use the 200-400mm range very often? If so, I think the 100-400 is the way to go. For wildlife, having all the zoom range in one go is handy too.

The 70-200 of course has its benefit from the bigger aperture up to 200mm (and maybe up to 280mm if you use a 1.4x on it too) but if you need to switch frequently for the longer lengths it gets tedious fast. Personally I never found a great need for the faster aperture for wildlife as it eats into the already shallow depth of field and makes decent focusing even harder.

You should note I don't do sports, so I don't know if the balance may be different there.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

I was leaning towards the 70-200 with a TC, due to its versatility. I dont think swapping the TC will be much of an issue as I rarely shoot under 200mm with my current 70-300, so 140-400mm for a wildlife shoot shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Thanks for the reply too.

_________________
My Stuff: Canon 550d, 18-55mm kit lens, 50mm f1.8, Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro, Tamron 70-300mm (never buy one of these EVER), and a whole bag of other gadgets, filters, flashguns etc.
My Flickr Photostream

You could rent both options (or go to your local store) to try them out first. In particular, you may want to see if the teleconverter with your current 70-300 is sufficient for your needs. The teleconverter alone is a much smaller purchase than either the 100-400 or the 70-200 + TC. You could also get over 400mm with just a 1.4x TC, which would have less of an effect on image quality.

Some relevant questions:
1) Which 70-300 lens do you have?
2) Where does your 70-300 fall short that you think a 70-200/100-400 would be better?

_________________
Body: Canon Rebel XS, Canon EOS 7D
Lenses: Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 OS HSM DC Macro, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 85mm f1.8 II USM

The only way I would go with the 70-200 is if the sports you are shooting are indoor. Otherwise, the 100-400 is amazing for sports and wildlife.

Thanks for all the advice, still undecided, but some good 'pros' for the 100-400. Wildlife is my main subject, but the 70-200 is such a nice, even icon lens.

_________________
My Stuff: Canon 550d, 18-55mm kit lens, 50mm f1.8, Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro, Tamron 70-300mm (never buy one of these EVER), and a whole bag of other gadgets, filters, flashguns etc.
My Flickr Photostream

If u find using the focal length 300-400 more often , then 100-400 L will be right choice.

Otherwise, for all other purpose, new 70-200 Mark ii is the best

_________________
Nikon D800
Nikon AFS 50mm F1.8 G
Sigma APO 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
Sony H50

As a owner of 70-200 F2.8 mk2 and if your interest is wildlife , better you opt for 100-400... coz sometimes when i go to shoot wildlife or bird photography , i feel that i am having a beast in my hand , but ultimately its too short for me to reach the subject.. after all you cant expect a tiger or vulture to sit beside you so that you can aim at them conveniently... i love my 70-200 to the core but for wildlife its just not sufficient unless you plan to go for converters like 1.4x or 2x... i tried with new 2x on my lens but i felt the AF is a bit slow.. actually the reviews said that 2x is much faster than its predecessor but for me i am not that happy.. if you are so much interested in wildlife , there is also other alternative lens for you which is 400 f5.6 , its brilliant for wildlife and especially for bird in flight shots... its AF is one of the fastest , you can refer the reviews of this lens on net... i personally recommend you for this unless you are looking for much shallow depth of field in your photographs..

this is my two cents...

all the best..

_________________
Canon EOS 5D mk III|Canon EOS 7D | 70-200 F2.8 L IS II USM | 400 F5.6 L USM

While I own neither, of the two choices, based on much on-line reading and comparing, the 100-400mm would be my pick. I chose the 400mm 5.6L, and love the light weight, compared to some heavier telephoto zoom lenses I have handled. Some reviewers have written that the 400mm 5.6L focuses faster than its 100-400mm zoom counterpart. Mine does focus right quickly!

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

RexGig, have you used the 300mm f/4 when you were looking at the 400mm f/5.6? Is it any good? I just bought a 70-200 f/4 but Im looking for a longer prime, would you recomend the 400 over the 300?

_________________
1) Olympus OM1 [Zuiko Auto-S 50mm f/1.8]
2) Pentax MZ-60 [Sigma 28-90 & 100-300]
3) Canon 7D [EF-S 15-85 & 70-200mm f/4 IS]

Leo's Flickr Page

Leo, the only lens with which I have used the 300mm focal length is a Nikkor 100-300mm 5.6 manual-focus zoom. I think it best for someone else to answer your question, as I am simply not qualified to do so.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

I have rented the 100-400mm and it is SO nice, I have to send it back tomorrow and don't want to let it go. I have been to my local zoo several times this week (the joys of an annual pass, and living 10 minutes away). I have several hundred photos, and the keeper rate is way up compared to my crap 70-300.
Even indoors in the reptile house I managed to get some nice shots at 100mm, even with <1/60s.

You understand why an L series costs so much once you have a good play with one.

_________________
My Stuff: Canon 550d, 18-55mm kit lens, 50mm f1.8, Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro, Tamron 70-300mm (never buy one of these EVER), and a whole bag of other gadgets, filters, flashguns etc.
My Flickr Photostream