Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

end

Archive 2005 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

Rodney_Gold
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

You might consider what I use and that is a 17-40 and a 28-300L IS with the 5d. In general the 28-300 is more than enough for just about anything.
I wrote a sortof mini review at
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DySv

Oct 27, 2005 at 06:27 AM

fuzzy1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

I love my 100-400. That said.. there is a learning curve with this lens.
Don't take it out of the box and expect to get great sharp pics. With a bit of practice you will master this lens though..

Oct 27, 2005 at 06:35 AM

J Williams
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

The 100-400 is a lot different than the 70-200. Twice as big and twice as heavy. It really depends on what you shoot and if you want to carry around a large lens all the time. If you sell the 70-200 and get the 100-400 this will be your only lens over 100 and it is a big heavy lens that you might not want to lug around on vacations etc. Think about what you are loosing by letting go of the 7 0-200 as well as what you are gaining with the 100-400.

One alternative to consider is the 200/2.8. It actually is a shorter than the 70-200 and about the same weight. You gain one stop and it works great with a 1.4x. I doubt the range between 105 & 200 will be missed much. I have the 70-200 and the 200 and lately I have been taking the 200/2.8 along with a 85/1.8 and really don't miss the in between range much at all.

If you do a lot of shooting in the 300-400 range the 300/4IS along with a 1.4x is great. I chose this over the 100-400 as I did not like the way the 100-400 handles. To me it was akward feeling when zoomed out to 400. It is longer than the 300 & 1.4x TC and it felt like more of the weight was up front. Plus if you only need 300 the prime will be better optically and faster.

One last one to consider is the new 70-300 IS. From most reports it seems to have pretty decent optical quality. It has 3rd gen IS which is a great. It may not be an L lens, but if you really hate tripods and don't want to lug around the 100-400 all the time this may be the lens to get. The ability to stop down a bit more because of the IS may negate the advantages of the 70-200 in many circumstances. I am seriously considering selling my 70-200 to get one of these, especially since I have the primes when I want that last nit of image quality.

Hope some of these ideas are helpful.

Oct 27, 2005 at 07:11 AM

rudiphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

Hi Dennis,

Funny how things turn out! I've bought a Samsung 19" flat panel monitor because of you (and then we had a discussion about hot pixels), now they're everywhere for 1/3 the price... but I digress.

I'm also thinking about purchasing the 100-400L IS at the moment, but am a little undecided, just like you. People either love or hate this lens - there doesn't seem to be any opinions in between. I also have the 70-200mm f/2.8L (non IS), and would be keeping that - this zoom would be in addition to the 70-200L.

The 100-400L seems like a great all-purpose long zoom, and I definitely like the idea of IS for the long end. I also like the close focusing distance of 1.8m.

There are a few things that I don't like - it's a slower lens, and it's push/pull design. Considering that any other 400mm Canon alternative faster than f/5.6 cost an arm and a leg, the lens is probably fast enough! And I can get used to the push/pull design. The one thing that is still slowing me down is that some people reckon that the zoo is not all that sharp at the long end. Reading through the thread up to this point, I wonder if they are using the lens properly.

The last thing I don't like about the 100-400L could also in some ways be interpreted as a good thing - it's EXPENSIVE! I feel that it's a bit pricey for what it is, BUT... it seems to retain its value even in the second hand market. I've never seen one of these go cheap! Ever! And THAT is probably a good indication of how good the lens is, IMO!

Comments from 100-400L owners?

Oct 27, 2005 at 07:12 AM

uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

J Williams wrote:
The 100-400 is a lot different than the 70-200. Twice as big and twice as heavy. It really depends on what you shoot and if you want to carry around a large lens all the time. If you sell the 70-200 and get the 100-400 this will be your only lens over 100 and it is a big heavy lens that you might not want to lug around on vacations etc. Think about what you are loosing by letting go of the 7 0-200 as well as what you are gaining with the 100-400.

That is actually not correct. When extended, the 100-400 is about 3 inches longer than the 70-200, but, when the 100-400 is contracted it is just about an inch shorter than the 70-200. And the 100-400 actually weighs about a quarter pound less than the 70-200, and the 100-400 is about 3/4 of a pound lighter than the 70-200 with a 1.4x.
Les

Oct 27, 2005 at 07:51 AM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

uz2work wrote:
That is actually not correct. When extended, the 100-400 is about 3 inches longer than the 70-200, but, when the 100-400 is contracted it is just about an inch shorter than the 70-200. And the 100-400 actually weighs about a quarter pound less than the 70-200, and the 100-400 is about 3/4 of a pound lighter than the 70-200 with a 1.4x.
Les
Les,
You are absolutely correct if you are talking about the 70-200mm f/2.8. I think, though that J Williams was referring to the f/4.0 version of that lens.

Dennis,
Recently, I became a believer in this lens myself. I bought it used at a slightly higher price but with the assertion from the previous owner (somebody that I know personally) that it is a sharp copy. Apparently, there is a fairly wide spread of optical quality difference among copies of this lens. The bottom line is if you get a sharp copy, this lens will be as good performance-wise with at the respective focal length range as your 70-200 lens. Plus the IS helps a lot in increasing the keepers...

Joshua

Oct 27, 2005 at 08:54 AM

uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

AGeoJO wrote:
Les,
You are absolutely correct if you are talking about the 70-200mm f/2.8. I think, though that J Williams was referring to the f/4.0 version of that lens.

Dennis,
Recently, I became a believer in this lens myself. I bought it used at a slightly higher price but with the assertion from the previous owner (somebody that I know personally) that it is a sharp copy. Apparently, there is a fairly wide spread of optical quality difference among copies of this lens. The bottom line is if you get a sharp copy, this lens will be as good performance-wise with at...Show more →

Josh,
You are correct. I was getting confused because there are about 3 threads on the board now discussing various lenses between 200 and 400 mm, and one of the others involves discussion of the 70-200/2.8 IS. I was carelessly thinking about that one when I posted on this one.
Les

Oct 27, 2005 at 09:09 AM

fuzzy1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

The 100-400 hardly ever leaves my camera.

I have gotten so used to the push/pull that I try and do it with every lens I use...lol

For me the choice was simple.. the 70-200 was more expensive plus I would have been in to the added expense ($400) for a 1.4 TC. I also find that 90% of my pics are in the 400mm range, but often animals will not cooperate and move toward you. It is nice to be able to yank that zoom back and reframe quickly...

Here are a few 100-400 pics...

100% Crop


	http://www.kenbarber.ca/phpBB2/album_pic.php?pic_id=152


	http://www.kenbarber.ca/phpBB2/album_pic.php?pic_id=149


	http://www.kenbarber.ca/phpBB2/album_pic.php?pic_id=177


	http://www.kenbarber.ca/phpBB2/album_pic.php?pic_id=178


	http://www.kenbarber.ca/phpBB2/album_pic.php?pic_id=75

rudiphoto wrote:
Hi Dennis,

Funny how things turn out! I've bought a Samsung 19" flat panel monitor because of you (and then we had a discussion about hot pixels), now they're everywhere for 1/3 the price... but I digress.

Oct 27, 2005 at 09:13 AM

xmattkx
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

Ariel marco wrote:
but the 100-400 is sharper at 400 than your 300 w/TC .........

I respectfully disagree, but the truth is for wildlife guys, I rarely find myself in the 100-200 range, and the 300 is so sharp, that I can crop to 100% if needed
M

Oct 27, 2005 at 09:22 AM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

What push-pull zoom design

? Just kidding. I used two zoom lenses that have two zoom designs and swithched between the two back and forth intensively on a recent trip for two weeks. I didn't even think of the difference; it worked very intuitively. Just do it!

This is a shot of 100-400mm lens at 400mm, f/5.6 and 1/125 sec:

Oct 27, 2005 at 09:27 AM

uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

xmattkx wrote:
I respectfully disagree, but the truth is for wildlife guys, I rarely find myself in the 100-200 range, and the 300 is so sharp, that I can crop to 100% if needed
M

Matt,
Earlier this summer, I conditionally bought a 300/4. I used it for about 2 weeks along side my 100-400, and I took about 2000 pictures with it. My conclusion was that, at 300, the 300 was marginally sharper than the 100-400 at 300, but they were so close that, once I processed the pictures, I couldn't tell the difference. The 300 with a 1.4x was marginally less sharp than the 100-400 at 400, but, again, they were so close that I had to look hard to tell the difference. Much like you tried to like the 100-400, I tried to like the 300, but I ultimately decided that, if the quality of its images and those from the 100-400 was a toss-up, that the 300 was, for me, basically redundant and would cost me the flexibility of the zoom. And I finally returned the 300 to the person from whom I had conditionally bought it. I've gotten to the point where I take the 100-400 on a second body with me on virtually every shoot, and while I may use it for only 10% of the shots on a shoot, almost every time, I come home with shots that I would not have gotten had I not been able to use the full range between 100 and 400.
Les

Oct 27, 2005 at 09:38 AM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

Here is another shot, this time with a 1.4X TC, at 560mm wide open (the effective aperture became an f/8.0) at 1/300 sec. FYI, I just printed a 13X19" of this and believe me, it is better on the print than on my monitor with unbelievable details.

Joshua

Oct 27, 2005 at 09:42 AM

thebiker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

Well it has to depend on what you are shooting. If you need the 400mm reach, and you are like most people who cant/wont spend the money on a 400 prime which is more than 3x (the f/4 non L version) the price, then the 100-400 is an obvious buy. I shoot mostly travel photography and people, and I find carrying the 16-36, 24-70, 70-200 plus the 1.4x teleconverter meets most of my needs. When I bought the 100-400, I didn't need it. I just wanted it.

Oct 27, 2005 at 09:51 AM

MASL
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

the 100-400 gets more usage lately, but the 70-200 f4 is a great lens for FF and for vacations. The 400 prime is tempting, but the push pull is very easy to get used to, and this is a nice starter-nature lens. It's light enough to hand-hold most of the time (thanks to IS), but my best shots are still tripod mounted.
And yes, forums are the strongest commercials for gear, so enjoy prints and picture posts, and lock your wallet away! ;-)

-Mark

Oct 27, 2005 at 10:15 AM

nutek
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

I like the 100-400 over the primes because of its versatility. Usually I will get primes only if I know what I am going to shoot, and the conditions associated with shooting that kind of photography (e.g. studio portraits, etc).

My copy of 100-400 is pretty sharp once I stop down to f6.3 and higher, and the picturest just have a very nice and contrasty "crisp" look to them, just like the 70-200F4 (I suspect it must be the flourite element

). However, the bokeh isn't very pleasing, so that is something that you might want to consider.

Taken at the 100mm end on my D30 some time ago..

Monkey samples:
http://www.galant-ho.com/summer05/peirce_monkeys/index.htm

Oct 27, 2005 at 10:18 AM

lpazxxsh
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

HAHA you got the bug!

Oct 27, 2005 at 11:03 AM

xmattkx
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

I must've had a bum copy then... I had Canon repair it, but even after repair it was never even decent at 400. 50% crops at best, then I started to have such soft images it was horrible. In a side-by-side with the 300, you could ALWAYS pic out the ones taken with the 300, with and without the TC

Oct 27, 2005 at 11:43 AM

OldCodger73
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Sell 70-200 F4L for 100-400L IS?

Dennis I was using a 70-200L f/4 on my Rebel XT and found that even with the 1.6 factor it just wasn't long enough. Plus I really found that it was too hard hand hold at slower speeds. The lens gave great results but it wasn't what I needed.

I bought a used 100-400L here on B&S and really like it. Yes it's bigger and heavier but it actually seems easier to hand hold than the 70-200L f/4. And the IS seems to work really well.

Right now I'm planning, once I convince SWMBO, to put the 70-200L f/4 up for sale on B&S and pick up a 135L.

Oct 27, 2005 at 02:31 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.