Any benefit in owning both Canon 100-400 IS L and Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS zooms.

[dugroberts]

Hello everyone,

I see that some photographers have both the Canon 100-400 IS L and Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS zoom lenses in their gear bags.

I presently have quite an old, sharp copy of the 100-400mm which has served me well, so I was wondering what benefits, if any, I would gain by acquiring the 70-200mm lens as in some ways it seems that I may be just duplicating what I already have in the longer zoom.

I was advised recently that I would be better off with the flexibility of a 70-200mm and a 1.4x extender. I don't know whether this is really the case or if the image quality of the 70-200mm zoom is so much better that it would tolerate the use of an extender ?

For wildlife photography I presently use a Canon 50D & 40D with a 5D for landscapes etc..

There is so much experience on this forum so any advice or comments would be greatly appreciated. I am quite new to the forum so please accept my apologies if this issue has already been discussed.

Many thanks, kindest regards,


Doug

[Joe Milmoe]

Hi Doug,

I see this quite a bit as well. They are both great lenses, aside from the obvious overlap in focal length.

I try to keep my backpack weight down to a minimum and am quite happy, having sold the 100-400 and going with the 70-200/4IS. It is significantly lighter, smaller and the updated IS mechanism is quite nice, IMO.

I do, however, compensate for the lost focal length by carrying both a 1.3x and 1.6x crop camera, should I need a bit more reach.

[Doug Brown]

While I think the 70-200 f/4 is a great lens, you're not getting much coverage that you don't already have with your 100-400. A 70-200 will only give you 280mm and your body won't AF with a 2x on that lens. I personally don't think that 280mm is enough focal length for birds and other wildlife. I'd save my money for the time being and stick with the 100-400.

[David Smith]

I have to agree with Doug on this one. I have the 100-400 and love it. Although it is a little heavier than the 70-200, the images are very sharp and the extra reach with the 100-400 makes it an ideal lens.. Matched up with my 28-135, I can travel very light and still have everything covered..

JMHO

Dave

[John Chardine]

The reason I sold my 100-400 and replaced it with the 70-200 f/4 IS was the acquisition of the 500/4. If I had not done that I would have definitely kept both zooms. As it is the 70-200 works great with or of course without the 1.4 tc and autofocuses nicely with the 1.4 attached. I find the twist zoom on the 70-200 more ergonomic for birds in flight than the push-pull of the 100-400.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

If you can have both then fine. I won't advise you to drop the 100-400 infavour of the 70-200. At times, You need the wider coverage if you are clicking big animals like elephants. I would say 70-200 with the 5D and the 100-400 with the 50D.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[dugroberts]

Hi Gents,

Thank you all very much indeed for your time & input and I hear what you are saying.

One thing in closing, do any of you who have experience in both these lenses consider the 70-200mm zoom to be significantly sharper than the 100-400mm lens, and if so how does this sharpness suffer when used with the 1.4 extender ?

The way I feel at the moment is that I will stick with my 100-400mm zoom and use it alongside my Canon 24-105mm zoom and Canon 400mm F/5.6. I find this combination suits most of my needs for the time being.

Thanks again for your advice. I am very grateful.

Kindest regards and best wishes,

Doug.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . The way I feel at the moment is that I will stick with my 100-400mm zoom and use it alongside my Canon 24-105mm zoom and Canon 400mm F/5.6. I find this combination suits most of my needs for the time being. . . .

I don't think you mentioned the 400 f5.6 before, and the fact that you own that lens makes a huge difference when considering the 70-200 and 100-400. There might be reasons to own all three, but given weight and space limitations for air travel, I certainly wouldn't want to travel with all three, which greatly limits the appeal (to me) of owning all three. My choice would be (and is) the 70-200 and 400 f5.6L, based in part on sharpness and in part on flight shooting. Your considerations might be different, of course, especially if you aren't burdened with the weight of a 500/600/800.

[Doug Brown]

I am a big fan of the combo that Cliff recommends. I own both lenses (but I also own the 500 and 600). I much prefer the 70-200 to the 100-400 at comparable focal lengths, and I don't hesitate to use a 1.4x with the 70-200. You get great sharpness; I use this combination for most of my multi-flash hummingbird photography.

[Roger Clark]

I have the 100-400, as well as 70-200 f/4 L IS (and 300 f/4 L IS, 300 f/2.8 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS). The 100-400 sits on the shelf. I haven't used it in years (over 9 years to be more precise). I should sell it. It is not as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 or 300 f/4 (or other fixed focal length lenses). The 100-400 is not sealed, so when you zoom it you pump air into and out of the lens and camera body. That means more potential for dust.

I do use the 70-400 with a 1.4x TC and it works great. It is a very sharp lens for a zoom.

[Michael Eckstein]

I've used the 70/200L, 100/400L combination for almost 10 years. I was recently able to try out the 400L f 5.6 for a day. After a few hours with it I decided to replace the 100/400L with the 400L f5.6. Reasons: slightly sharper, but an amazing difference in the speed of auto focus acquisition. I find my birds in flight keeper rate has more than tripled.

The 70/200L with 1.4TC and the 400L f5.6 make a much better combo for me.

[dugroberts]

Hi Gents,

Thank you all once again for your advice.

After taking everything on board, and also reading the threads below, I have changed my mind and today ordered my own Canon 70-200mm F/4L IS.

Whether I shall in due course sell my 100-400 zoom remains to be seen but I'm really looking forward to putting the 70-200mm through it's paces.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=34302

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=26005


Best wishes,

Doug.

PS; About 4 years ago I travelled from the UK and spent two weeks in the Everglades National Park, Florida, staying at the Flamingo Lodge in Flamingo itself.

I was thinking of a return trip next February/March but I understand that Flamingo Lodge is no longer in use due to damage sustained during Hurricane Wilma.

Does anyone local to the area have any info on this or when the best time is to visit the Everglades. My last trip concentrated mainly around the Anhinga Trail, Shark Valley, Eco Pond and a solitary trip to the Wakodahatchee Wetlands. It was a great experience.

Kindest regards to all.

[Stan Cunningham]

Well maybe I shouldn't post this since you just ordered it but I have both and like the 70-200 2.8L for the speed and extra sharpness. I like my 1-400, but as I get pickier about IQ, it's become almost strictly a tripod lens. I also shoot other animals besides birds, but any thing in the forest in the slanted light we all love often needs to be faster than 5.6, or on a tripod. And I don't use 5.6 any more with 100-400, I'm not happy with any thing less than 7.1 very often. I rented the 400 5.6 and agree with the above, it focuses faster (tried both on the 7 and 50D) and the images are sharp at 5.6, hand held, and I just won't do that any longer with the 1-400. I also shoot whales and brown bears in AK in the summer and that's why I finally decided I had to have a faster lens. But many people like there F4, just I found I needed the fastest possible.

[Stephen Feingold]

I have both lenses. I mostly use the 100-400 for wildlife, and the 70-200 f4 for landscapes. But will interchange them for those purposes according to subject distance, and or weight concerns. The 70-200 f4 should pair nicely with the 5D.