pricepolice wrote:
How does the 70-200 compare with the 100-400 in terms of sharpness and focusing?
I am quite bent on the f/2.8 for the 70-200.
IMO the 70-200 2.8/IS is perhaps just a bit better with focus and sharpness, although it's very close. But it's just too short for much of the photography that I like to do....
this may be a dumb question but does this lens feature "internal focusing" or does it extend when zooming in/out? Also, does this lens incorporate the same type of IS (type 2??) as in 70-200 2.8 IS?
Rather than get this lens why not go for the 70-200 2.8 'L' with a 1.4TC. The Lens is MUCH better than the 100-400 even with the TC on it. A cheaper 70-200 F4 version is also possible and will deliver very high quality.
A big problem with the 100-400 type of zoom is that it is a push pull type --i.e you don't rotate the lens for focal length you push it in and out like using a telescope.
The push pull can also get loose so it's difficult to maintain the focal length stably.
Sun bear at the Perth zoo. 235mm, F/4.5, ISO800. Post processing: saturation boost and sharpening. No noise reduction applied. Proof that image stabilisation works!
kyle wrote:
Rather than get this lens why not go for the 70-200 2.8 'L' with a 1.4TC. The Lens is MUCH better than the 100-400 even with the TC on it. A cheaper 70-200 F4 version is also possible and will deliver very high quality.
A big problem with the 100-400 type of zoom is that it is a push pull type --i.e you don't rotate the lens for focal length you push it in and out like using a telescope.
The push pull can also get loose so it's difficult to maintain the focal length stably.
Cheers
-K
Kyle,
I have both the 70-200 IS and the 100-400. I'll agree that the 70-200 does subtly better than the 100-400 below 200, but the 70-200 with a 1.4x is marginally worse than the 100-400, and the 70-200 with a 2x is significantly worse than the 100-400. Also, the 70-200 is about 1/2 pound heavier, even without a TC and slightly longer than the 100-400 (contracted). Also, the push-pull on the 100-400 does have a locking ring, and, whether or not you
like the design, it does a good job of maintaining focal length stability.
The bottom line is that, if I could only have 1 of these 2 lenses, if I were doing most of my shooting below 200mm and never needed anything at 400, I would definitely get the 70-200. However, if the much of my shooting was going to be beyond 200 or if any of it needed to be at 400, my choice would be the 100-400.
Les
The push-pull design of the 100-400 scares a lot of people but it did not take me 2 days to get used to it.
It is a very nice lens - which has its compromises - but nothing matches its flexibility to cost to quality ratio.
I use it in the mountains, when I can not carry more than 1 lens - it serves as wildlife / landscape lens all in one and does a great job at both.
Of course I'd rather have a 135 f:2 and a 300f:2.8 IS but at 14,000 feet I just can't carry those.
I also have the 70-200; it is just not as versatile. Better image quality for sure (not with the 1.4 conv though) but 200mm is often too short for my shooting style.On the other hand it is my favorite landscape lens.
Here are a few from those past 2 summers all shot w/ the 100-400
KIDERAL wrote:
I just sent my 100-400 in for servicing yesterday. It was softer than my 750-300 IS which I never use and shouldn't even be close..
I sent my 100-400 in for servicing the other day too. The IS was bust so they replaced the IS and re-calibrated the lens. Formally pretty sharp, N\now its soft or not focusing correctly . Back it goes as soon as I can characterize the problem in more detail. Glad I bought that 400/5.6 as partner for it.
Yesterday was the first time I used this lens that was recently bought in this forum. Actually, it was my first time using my 1dMk2 outdoor for some 'real' shooitng too. Got a few images I like:
Both shots were shot handheld and almost full frame with minimum cropping for composition. I am very happy with the lens, especially this was the first time I used it and got nice results like this.
kyle wrote:
Rather than get this lens why not go for the 70-200 2.8 'L' with a 1.4TC. The Lens is MUCH better than the 100-400 even with the TC on it. A cheaper 70-200 F4 version is also possible and will deliver very high quality.
A big problem with the 100-400 type of zoom is that it is a push pull type --i.e you don't rotate the lens for focal length you push it in and out like using a telescope.
The push pull can also get loose so it's difficult to maintain the focal length stably.
Cheers
-K
Gordon Bennet (a UK expression probably!) - if it produces sharper photos than these you would cut your hands on it!
. Back it goes as soon as I can characterize the problem in more detail. Glad I bought that 400/5.6 as partner for it. 
