Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2013 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?
  
 
RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


I'm contemplating on picking up a 400mm for birds. Right now it's between the 100-400 and 400 5.6 prime lens. Is the 100-400 too redundant with the 70-200 if intended use will be at 400mm? Especially given the price advantage the prime offers vs the zoom? IQ seems to be a wash between the two. Biggest differentiators being price, weight, AF speed and IS. All things considered, those of you using this lens in conjunction with a 70-200, is the application different enough to justify the price difference?


Feb 12, 2013 at 05:38 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Are we supposed to guess which of the five 70-200 lenses you are talking about


Feb 12, 2013 at 05:53 AM
RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Imagemaster wrote:
Are we supposed to guess which of the five 70-200 lenses you are talking about

Sorry, I guess I should have specified. I use a 2.8 IS II



Feb 12, 2013 at 05:55 AM
Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


No it's not redundant


Feb 12, 2013 at 06:08 AM
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


The 100-400 is redundant if you have a 70-200 & 2x teleconverter, which the 70-200 mk2 version works well with.
Also the 400 prime has better IQ and the 100-400 is a bit short of 400mm.



Feb 12, 2013 at 06:47 AM
Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


surf monkey wrote:
The 100-400 is redundant if you have a 70-200 & 2x teleconverter, which the 70-200 mk2 version works well with.
Also the 400 prime has better IQ and the 100-400 is a bit short of 400mm.


Yes the 100-400 is a bit short of 400mm. But so is the 70-200 with TC. Nearly all tele zoom lenses are a little bit shorter than their name suggest



Feb 12, 2013 at 07:10 AM
Jim Victory
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Not at all and I own both.

Jim



Feb 12, 2013 at 07:27 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Hell no, not in the least bit redundant if you shoot at 300mm+ regularly.


Feb 12, 2013 at 09:00 AM
gome1122
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Imagemaster wrote:
Are we supposed to guess which of the five 70-200 lenses you are talking about


You could look at his profile, it says it there.



Feb 12, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Imagemaster wrote:
Are we supposed to guess which of the five 70-200 lenses you are talking about


gome1122 wrote:
You could look at his profile, it says it there.


It works better if one person takes a moment to put necessary info into an original post than having hundreds of people take extra steps to examine a profile and guess whether it might be up to date or not.

Greatest success is achieved when asking questions if the questioner thinks of how responders might attempt to answer the question and what they might need or want to answer it well and specifically rather than vaguely and generally.




Feb 12, 2013 at 11:44 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Jim Victory wrote:
Not at all and I own both.

Jim


+1



Feb 12, 2013 at 12:37 PM
rongoe
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


I had the 100-400 and 400 5.6 before getting the 70-200 IS II. I sold the 100-400 and don't miss it.


Feb 12, 2013 at 12:41 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


I don't like the shiting balance point of the 100-400 and with the excellent IQ of the 70-200/2.8 IS II and 2X TC III I think that would be my preffered setup. Weight saving would aslo be a bonus.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Feb 12, 2013 at 01:34 PM
msalvetti
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


I use them both extensively. I read all the different threads here evaluating the 70-200II with a 2xTC, and I concluded that the image quality was probably on a par with the 100-400, but the AF in AI Servo was going to be slower than the 100-400. Since I already had both, I just kept them. If I didn't own the 100-400 yet, I would have been tempted to pick up a 2x TC and see if I could live without the 100-400.

Here's what I use the two lenses for the most:

100-400: Soccer, baseball on full-size fields, nature (mostly birds), air shows
70-200: Ice hockey (all winter at f/2.8), sports car racing, low-light events (weddings, christenings, etc), some nature, used to shoot Little League where I used the 70-200 more than the 100-400.

Mark



Feb 12, 2013 at 02:06 PM
Paulthelefty
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


I have not used either of the 400s, so take this with a grain of salt. Your 70-200 with 2x TC is great for most applications, but I found it lacking specifically for BIF. See my blog for details
HERE

There are lots of reviews out there if you dig a little, but ultimately you have to decide what is most important for your shooting.

I now have an older 300 f2.8 and a 1.4x TC, so my 400 desires have been quelled (for now).

Paul




Feb 12, 2013 at 02:15 PM
Lotuselite
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


I don't like the shiting balance point of the 100-400 and with the excellent IQ of the 70-200/2.8 IS II and 2X TC III I think that would be my preffered setup. Weight saving would aslo be a bonus. Happy shooting, Yakim.

Yakim, according to the specs in B&H site, the 70-200 Mk II is heavier than the 100-400 zoom, and that is without the added weight of the TC ,unless I am reading it wrong.



Feb 12, 2013 at 03:31 PM
RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


He probably is referring to the shift in balance as the 100-400 is being zoomed because of the push pull design. Btw, I plan on using a tripod.


Feb 12, 2013 at 03:38 PM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Yakim Peled wrote:
I don't like the shiting balance point of the 100-400


It would never have occurred to me that there could be a dislike of a "shifting balance point". I just so naturally shift my grip as I zoom it that I have never had a problem with balance. It just is not an issue if you hold the camera properly. The 100-400 is one of my favourite most used lenses. It is amazing how people find nit-picky little things to dislike in good equipment and blow them out of proportion.

The 100-400 is a great lens. I would like to add a 70-200 to my toolkit and I wouldn't sell the 100-400. I wouldn't sell my 85mm or my 80mm super-rotator or my 100mm macro either, despite the overlap and duplication of focal lengths.



Feb 12, 2013 at 03:49 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


surf monkey wrote:
The 100-400 is redundant if you have a 70-200 & 2x teleconverter, which the 70-200 mk2 version works well with.
Also the 400 prime has better IQ and the 100-400 is a bit short of 400mm.



The 100-400 is not redundant if you have a 70-200 & 2x TC, because you can go from 1000-400mm and from 400-100mm faster with the 100-400 and without the hassle of putting on and removing TC's.

I can show you a pile of 16x20 prints taken with both the 100-400 and 400 f5.6 at 400mm, and I bet you could not tell me which images were taken with which lens.



Feb 12, 2013 at 04:08 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Yakim Peled wrote:
I don't like the shiting balance point of the 100-400

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



You are the first person I have ever heard of complaining about that hardship.



Feb 12, 2013 at 04:09 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password