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?
  
 
StillFingerz
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Roger, I've not the f2.8 but the 70-200 f4L IS and use it with T/Cs get a vIII they are sharper in the corners. As for your 400 choice, if you shoot at 400 w/tripod I'd get the prime...why pay for the IS if you're not going to use it.

The 100-400 has it's utility no doubt, but it's slightly heavier and costly, and I'm not a fan of it's design, push-pull isn't my fav. IQ wise, as seen here on FM, it's pretty close for both lenses, usually sharpness and AF speed leans to a prime tho.

I looked really hard at the new 70-300L; a really nice holdable zoom, and ended up getting the 300 f4 IS, and don't regret doing so for that FL. With both T/Cs and extension tubes it's fantastic, I'll probably do the same when looking for a 400.

Lighter lenses are a preference; a physical issue for me. A 10-22/17-40 and 70-200 are my most used lenses, otherwise I'm quite partial to primes, the 100 mac being a huge fav. Old school film habits die hard I suppose, with the 100-400 vs 400 f5.6L, the lighter prime would get my nood...YMMV as it does for many on FM and their images with the zoom really do shine

Try them both out, rent if you can, good luck deciding and enjoy shooting...
Jerry

Edited on Feb 12, 2013 at 04:15 PM · View previous versions



Feb 12, 2013 at 04:11 PM
snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


"too redundant". That phrasing makes me


Feb 12, 2013 at 04:14 PM
Sjjindra
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


RogerC11 wrote:
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.


RogerC11

If you are planning to use a tripod for most of your shots, the 70-200 2.8 II and 2X TC (preferably VIII) would be a viable alternate to the 100-400. The main advantage of the 100-400 is it's hand-holdability and quick flexability, which you will mostly loose with a tripod anyway.

Steve



Feb 12, 2013 at 04:22 PM
gocolts
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


From a pure IQ standpoint, I found the 70-200 2.8II + Canon 2XII TC to be able to hold it's own with my old 100-400L, assuming I stopped the 70-200 down to f/6.3. Which, given that I'm using it outdoors in decent light, wasn't a big deal, so I sold the 100-400 for a 70-300L, as I found I needed a smaller, lighter, telephoto for traveling, and I was willing to deal with the size/weight of the 70-200 II with the 2XTC when I needed 300-400mm.

No matter what, you really can't go wrong, just depends where you want to deploy your resources.



Feb 12, 2013 at 05:55 PM
jasonpatrick
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Depends on what you shoot. For me, yes. Redundant. I kept the 100-400.


Feb 12, 2013 at 08:50 PM
Jo Dilbeck
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


If I had to make a choice between my 70-200 F2.8 II IS w/2xIII TC vs my 100-400, I would have to give up the 70-200. My 100-400 is my most used lens second to my 24-105. I rarely use the 70-200, just don't shoot much in that range, but it's a stunning lens!


Feb 12, 2013 at 09:09 PM
ashley138
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


I don't think it's redundant, and I suppose it depends on what you're shooting. I don't have a 70-200, which is the reason I opted for the 100-400, I still wonder if I should've gone for the prime anyways. I've always heard it's significantly sharper (and you can see it in people's work). IF I had a 70-200 II, I'd get the prime. Even thoygh it doesn't have IS - that only matters in low light situations and if you've got it on a tripod, Is doesn't matter anyways.


Feb 12, 2013 at 09:17 PM
jasonpatrick
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


ashley138 wrote:
.....I still wonder if I should've gone for the prime anyways. I've always heard it's significantly sharper (and you can see it in people's work). IF I had a 70-200 II, I'd get the prime. Even thoygh it doesn't have IS - that only matters in low light situations and if you've got it on a tripod, Is doesn't matter anyways.


Sorry, but you've heard wrong. This is one of those topics that's been chewed over time and time again (even in this thread), but "significantly sharper" just isn't the case. In MOST cases, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference at 100%, let alone a print. I've had both and shot with both extensively. The only thing that's "significantly different" about the two lenses is the auto focus. The 400mm f/5.6 is the fastest auto focusing lens I've ever used. It tracks locks and tracks like a dream.



Feb 13, 2013 at 04:58 AM
timplog
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


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


Try balancing that combination on a gimbal at the shorter end, and then zooming out (weight shift) and needing to reposition (rebalance) the gimbal a few times, it's PITA if you know.....
Cheers
tim



Feb 13, 2013 at 08:13 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


RogerC11 wrote:
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?


That is not too redundant. I have two of the 100-400, the 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II, along with the 400/5.6.

EBH



Feb 13, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Lotuselite wrote:
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.


The other point I was reffering to is having both 70-200 and 100-400.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Feb 13, 2013 at 08:03 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


RogerC11 wrote:
He probably is referring to the shift in balance as the 100-400 is being zoomed because of the push pull design.


Precicely.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Feb 13, 2013 at 08:04 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Monito wrote:
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
...Show more

I never said or even implied that the 100-400 is anything but a great lens. However, the fact is that I used it quite a few times and just didn't like that issue. In fact, it was the only issue I found disturbing. All other issues (IQ, BQ, AT etc.) were great. So, all I did was voicing a personal opinion. If this does not bother the OP and if he doesn't mind having two lenses then that's great. I was just saying that I would not do that.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Feb 13, 2013 at 08:12 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


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


That's what great about this forum. You never stop learning new things.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Feb 13, 2013 at 08:13 PM
Richard Nye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


I think the 400 f/5.6 is a better compliment to 70-200 f/2.8 ISII for birds. The IQ is very good, it's very portable, good on a tripod, has a nice integrated hood. It has the added benefit of having a nice minimum focus distance for critters up close. Sometime I regret selling mine.


Feb 13, 2013 at 08:21 PM
RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Nice mfd?? I actually hear thats the weakpoint of the 400 5.6 at over 10 feet.


Feb 13, 2013 at 08:23 PM
Jim Victory
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


Richard Nye wrote:
I think the 400 f/5.6 is a better compliment to 70-200 f/2.8 ISII for birds. The IQ is very good, it's very portable, good on a tripod, has a nice integrated hood. It has the added benefit of having a nice minimum focus distance for critters up close. Sometime I regret selling mine.


Maybe your thinking about the 300 f/4L IS regarding MFD. The MFD on the 400 f/5.6L is almost 2x more than the 100-400.

Jim



Feb 13, 2013 at 08:45 PM
rockant
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · Is the 100-400 too redundant with a 70-200?


I love my 100-400 and use it extensively for Wildlife, not much for Birds since getting the 500 f4.

The combination of the 24-105 and 100-400 works great in bright daylight, but I would not give up my 70-200 f2.8II when the light starts to fade.

Anthony



Feb 13, 2013 at 10:18 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password