I'm thinking about picking up an RF 100-300 to replace my 200-400. Currently using the 24-105 Z, 70-200 Z, and 400 2.8 II for most work. Prefer shooting the 400 wide open, so I gravitate towards it over the 200-400 a lot more than I should.
Looking for input from those who have used - or own both - the 70-200 Z and 100-300. Keep both? Prefer one over the other? IQ comparison? Is dual-strap, run-and-gunning long events w/ a 24-105 and 100-300 even feasible?
Obviously, the 100-300 is not cheap. Debating whether to lighten the blow by selling the 70-200.
The only reason to bring the 100-300 is if you know you need 300 and size and weight don't matter — think safari, where you're in a car, or polar bears, where the boat carries it. The lens is too small to justify a gimbal but too big to swing around by hand for hours; the 100-500 is much better at that. Image quality is excellent naked and still good with the 2x. I've never found the 1.4x to be a valid compromise.
The 70-200 is amazing when you know 200 is enough, and there are plenty of applications where it is. It also takes the TCs like a champ — I can't tell the Z + 2x from the 100-500 in a blind test. A true gem.
For me, "100-300 or Z?" has never really been the question; the use case usually answers it. The one that comes up all the time is "100-500 or Z with a TC?"
I wouldn't hesitate a second to replace the 200-400 with the 100-300 — no comparison. The 100-300 should have had a built-in TC, but that's another story; even without it, it's the clear choice. I've never dual-strapped the 100-300 with the 24-105 Z, though my son has, without complaints. On safari I dual-shoot the RF 400 and the 100-300, but there the car is doing the heavy lifting.
stanj wrote:
The 70-200 is amazing when you know 200 is enough, and there are plenty of applications where it is. It also takes the TCs like a champ — I can't tell the Z + 2x from the 100-500 in a blind test. A true gem.
In good light, how has your experience been with AF accuracy with the 2x on the 70-200 Z?
nightnight wrote:
In good light, how has your experience been with AF accuracy with the 2x on the 70-200 Z?
Not as good as the 100-500 naked, that's for sure. Still workable. It depends on what you are after - if you're planning to shoot long on a regular basis, then the 100-500 is the better choice. If 200 is good enough most of the time, then the extra stop is very nice.
I have both as well as the RF 400. A few observations that could help you decide:
(1) For sports, I usually find myself with the 100-300 because it does the job of the 70-200 + 400 combo most of the time. If you need the reach for football, hockey, etc., the 100-300 is a no-brainer. Even for closer-range sports like basketball and volleyball where I could get by with a 70-200, I also bring the 100-300. I only take the 70-200 when I'm just not feeling it.
(2) That said, the 70-200 Z is significantly easier to use because it is lighter (center of mass is closer to the body) and has a much shorter, more effortless throw across its focal range.
(3) IQ-wise, both are exceptionally sharp. Can't go wrong with either one.
Also 24-105 + 100-300 is definitely feasible imo, I do it all the time with the 28-70 f/2.
You should keep the 70-200 Z because some days you’ll appreciate having the lighter option and think, “thank god I don’t have to haul the 100-300 around.”
After picking up the 200-400, I never used my 100-400 II again. After picking up the 400 2.8, I slowed down with the 200-400. The 100-500 has been off my radar as I haven't gotten tired of lugging around the big glass... yet!
I primarily shoot runners, races, and brand events centered around running & fitness. Need 15mm one minute and 200+ the next - which is why I've been thinking the 24-105 + 100-300 should be the holy grail.
If you’re already using the 400 2.8 a lot, I’d probably go with the 100-300 and sell the 70-200. The 100-300 gives you a really useful range for events, and with the 24-105 on the second body the setup makes a lot of sense. The main thing would be the extra weight for run and gun work.
I went the other way with the 200-400, coming from ~20 years of 400/2.8 use. Once I got the zoom, I barely used the prime and eventually sold it. And my 600/4 IS v1. The primes were/are better optically, but if you need the flexibility of a zoom... It really depends on your applications.
Until last year I primarily used the 200-400 for field sports. Last year I borrowed/rented the 100-300 for football. IMO it's too short for this, bare, so I 100% used it with the 1.4x TC. This combo is faster focusing and sharper than the bare 200-400, and a little wider at the wide end, which I found pretty much negated the need to use a 70-200, using a xx-70 on the second body instead for really close action. However I do kind of miss the 560mm option of the 200-400. When I first tried the 100-300 for football I ended up using it with the 2x most of the time, as it was too painful to swap TCs during breaks in action, but I don't really like f/5.6 at 400mm or wider. It starts to lack background separation at typical working distances. So I stay mostly with the 1.4x. In this respect, the new Sony 100-400/4.5 would be almost ideal.
However, I still haven't bought a 100-300. I got the 70-200Z instead thinking that with the 1.4x it would be a one stop slower, poor man's 100-300. It's very close, but not quite the same, understandably. But there are situations, shooting events, where I prefer the 70-200 with TC over a larger lens. In the past this would have been the 200-400, and while at 280/4 the Z is shorter, it's sharper than the 200-400. Paired with a high resolution camera like the R5II, I've found it's an adequate replacement when I don't want to lug around a larger lens. I have shot events with the 100-300 on one shoulder, hand held, and a wide on the other camera. It's certainly doable and not as bad as I expected. But when I want to be more mobile, or not feel as weighed down, the 70-200 & TC is better. I also think there are some event situation where a 100-300 is just too conspicuous, especially if you're working in close distances at the wider end. I actually feel even more strongly about this with the 24-105Z.
24-105Z and 100-300 with or without a TC is a great combo. 70-200Z with 1.4x TC and 400/2.8 would also be good. I don't think there's really one definitive answer here because it depends so much on what you're covering. Personally, I would not sell the 70-200 because I think it still has a place, though perhaps a diminished one if you're OK lugging around the 100-300. If you don't yet have the TCs, then consider adding one or both.
