Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  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
  

70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?
  
 
AEnigma
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


So, I have a bit a quandary on my hands. I'm looking for a longer telephoto lens to do anything from wildlife, sports, to occasional events. Usually this is just where a photographer would buy the 70-200mm ii and call it a day. However, I already have the 135mm for a wide aperture lens and I love it for portraits and weddings. However, outside of those two uses, the 135mm l doesn't get much general use. The three lenses I have in my threat title are the ones I'm looking at to be my longer telephoto lenses. I would probably use the 70-200mm with a 1.4x teleconverter if I chose that one. Optically, from what I can see, the 100-400mm's benefit over the 70-300mm l is just that it has 100mm more reach and can take converters. I try to avoid having overly heavy lenses, but in this case, the way I see, if I'm going to end up buying one of these three, it might as well be the most useful one for general purpose use. What would any of you guys do? Just upgrade the 135mm l to the 70-200mm ii and use an extender? Buy the 70-300mm for price/ weight if not a serious or avid birder. Or buy the 100-400mm ii anyway as a compliment to the 135mm l because it's just such a great lens?


Nov 09, 2017 at 06:41 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


I'd almost certainly go with the 100-400 for birds and wildlife, for the reach. The 70-300 might be good, but not as much reach.

The 70-200 isn't long enough for wildlife imo. Maybe on crop or with the 1.4, but I'd probably get a lens that didn't need a tc.



Nov 09, 2017 at 06:57 PM
MatthewK
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


For me, it's between the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 100-400 II.

Get a 100-400, keep the 135L, and add a 1.4xIII TC down the line.

or

Get a 100-400, sell the 135L eventually and pick up the 70-200 f/2.8 II.

I consider the 100-400 Canon's best lens, so if that's on someone's list of options, that's what I'll recommend

The 70-200 II is remarkable as well, it's hard to envision not having it when shooting events or any paid work. Just read the on-going thread that compares the 135 and 70-200 for some good insights. At first blush, everyone asks if having both the 70-200 and 100-400 is worth it, seeing as they cover a good portion of the same focal lengths. YES, they can coexist... I've never once had a situation where I had to choose between them because their use cases are so different as to not cause conflict.

The 1.4xIII will give you more reach on any of those lenses as well, excluding the 70-300L. That, plus depending on what type of birds or wildlife you're shooting, the 300mm may come up a little short, is why I don't think that lens is a good choice.



Nov 09, 2017 at 07:02 PM
hotdog12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


I'm in total love with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, but I do a lot of low light work ranging from sports to interview portraits to podium speakers. If I shot daylight stuff, I would jump on the 100-400.


Nov 09, 2017 at 07:14 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


Yeah, I think the 70-200 would be better for events.



Nov 09, 2017 at 07:22 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


I second both Craig @hotdog12 and Mike @AmbientMike


Nov 09, 2017 at 09:29 PM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


70-200 portrait indoor sports
70-300 landscape and general
100-400 outdoor sports and wildlife



Nov 09, 2017 at 10:20 PM
Ferrophot
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


As Rob Dickson says these three lenses have different uses. Decide which is your most favoured and buy the lens that suits that use. If your gamut of photography is wider then save up for the next appropriate lens.
You don't say what camera you use but if it is a crop there are some excellent EF-S lenses that could be a stop gap until the 'L' can be afforded.



Nov 09, 2017 at 10:31 PM
M. Best
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


100-400 easily for wildlife. If you have a F8 body, Id also get a 1.4tc as you can never have enough reach.
As an added bonus, the 100-400 makes a decent macro(flowers, butterflies, etc) as well.



Nov 09, 2017 at 10:40 PM
David Garcia
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


Rob nailed it


Nov 09, 2017 at 11:49 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Mikehit
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


If you want to take pictures of birds where the animal occupies a large proportion of the frame then undoubtedly 100-400ii plus 1.4x tc.
If you prefer the idea of larger wildlife in an environmental setting then you may find the 70-300L a good option and you accept the occasional frustration when it is not long enough (hell,you can even thing that with a 500mm lens!)

Art Morris (premier bird photographer) advises the 70-200 f2.8 + 2xtc for those who do occasional wildlife, though it is worth noting that the 100-400ii weighs about the same as the 70-200 f2.8 so weight advantage of the 70-200 has now gone.

Also bear in mind that the 70-300L will take 3rd party extenders, but not the Canon extenders - the canon ones have a protruding front element that the third party options do not.



Nov 10, 2017 at 09:42 AM
NCAndy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


I have all three of these lenses. The 70-200 and 100-400 get used all the time. The 70-300L has been the forgotten lens. I have thought to sell it but it is my travel lens because of the three it is the most compact, and I'm reluctant to let it go. Each of these lenses fill a need for me and I think Rob hit the nail on the head for their uses. The only reason I'd go the 70-300L over the other two is if travel size was important. Otherwise the faster 70-200 or the longer 100-400 would be the choice depending on need.


Nov 10, 2017 at 10:41 AM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


So nobody likes the Sigma 100-400 at 1/3 the price and smaller size, but 90% the IQ?


Nov 10, 2017 at 01:31 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


TeamSpeed wrote:
So nobody likes the Sigma 100-400 at 1/3 the price and smaller size, but 90% the IQ?


It looks sweet, but a tripod collar is a must for me for such a long lens.



Nov 10, 2017 at 02:02 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


Sure, but not everyone needs that. I rarely use a tripod with my 150-600 or my old 100-400. However the only thing that would prevent me from recommending the Sigma 100-400 are some reviews that say in a sports environment, the HSM is still not quite 100% reliable and misses focus more than Canon lenses. That is a bigger issue for me than the missing tripod ring. The 100-400II is still very expensive, and I cannot see buying that while I have the Sigma 150-600, but I really want it!


Nov 10, 2017 at 02:07 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


So it is a sweet lens that doesn't work for tripod use and doesn't work for handheld use


Nov 10, 2017 at 02:10 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


RobDickinson wrote:
70-200 portrait indoor sports
70-300 landscape and general
100-400 outdoor sports and wildlife


The 70-300 L would not be my preferred lens for landscape over the 100-400 L II.



Nov 10, 2017 at 02:30 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


RobDickinson wrote:
70-200 portrait indoor sports
70-300 landscape and general
100-400 outdoor sports and wildlife

alundeb wrote:
The 70-300 L would not be my preferred lens for landscape over the 100-400 L II.


Same here. One reason I sold the 70-300L IS.



Nov 10, 2017 at 02:43 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


alundeb wrote:
So it is a sweet lens that doesn't work for tripod use and doesn't work for handheld use


Sure, I guess so if you are one to always use tripods, and like to shoot fast sports. Good thing there are many other things to shoot!




Nov 10, 2017 at 03:46 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 70-200mm ii, 70-300mm l, or 100-400mm II?


TeamSpeed wrote:
Sure, I guess so if you are one to always use tripods, and like to shoot fast sports. Good thing there are many other things to shoot!



My comment was tongue-in-cheek

If I didn't already have the Canon L II, the Sigma 100-400 would be more tempting. Packing my bag for a mountain hike, I would take the Sigma over the Canon any day. But I also have the 70-300 non-L II, which is also a quite decent lens and even lighter

Both the Sigma 100-400 and the Canon 70-300 IS II are optimized for the longest focal length, where they are relatively strong performers.



Nov 10, 2017 at 04:25 PM
1
       2       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password