# 70-200mm 2.8 IS II vs 100-400mm



## Constantijn (Jul 17, 2013)

I have an interesting dilemma that I’d like all your experts opinion on. Quite recently I’ve upgraded from a Nikon DX camera to a Canon 5DIII, what a joy this is! Only I have to, of course, get a complete set of lenses as well. Since my name is not Rockefeller budget is an issue.
What I already have is a 50mm 1.4 and recently I bought the 17-40mm 4.0. I’m really pleased with both lenses but I miss a telelens. My primary use would be for travelling, I do get to go to the Kruger National Park in South-Africa every second year so I need some range, I want to use it for other travelling as well as sports events as well. My thoughts move between a 70-200mm II lens with a 2x convertor for the long range (don’t need it all the time) or a 100-400mm lens. I’ve read on this site that there’s a rumour that this last lens might be replaced soon, is this worth waiting for?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2013)

I have both. For travel, I recently got the 70-300L - better IQ than the 100-400, much more convenient size.


----------



## el bouv (Jul 17, 2013)

Hi

Rental could be another way to address your requirement.

Get hold of Outdoor Photo and rent a 300 or 400 f2.8 with extenders for your stay in the Park, or the new 200-400 zoom.

They have a branch in Nelspruit and could probably deliver to you.

Then you do not have to travel with the lens.


http://www.odprentals.co.za/


----------



## sk (Jul 17, 2013)

I have had 100-400 for many years and 70-200 II (+1.4 II Ext) for 6 months - used on 7D/5DIII. Better AF for moving subjects, marginal IQ difference at 400mm and its lower price are the only advantages with the 100-400 over the 70-200+2x. The 100-400 does noticeably vignette at 400mm/f5.6 on FF. For most uses in the 70-200's range it gives you the f2.8 advantage and better handling, IS and IQ. Whilst the 70-300L is another option with better IQ than the 100-400, it lacks the range and option to use extenders. The larger aperture of the 70-200 is still more appealing to me. Rent a 500/f4 for those rare safaris.


----------



## Constantijn (Jul 18, 2013)

Thanks for this link. Rental is of course Always an option, but I do want to own a nice zoom lens as well. I can not Always predeict when I need the lens.


----------



## Constantijn (Jul 18, 2013)

sk said:


> I have had 100-400 for many years and 70-200 II (+1.4 II Ext) for 6 months - used on 7D/5DIII. Better AF for moving subjects, marginal IQ difference at 400mm and its lower price are the only advantages with the 100-400 over the 70-200+2x. The 100-400 does noticeably vignette at 400mm/f5.6 on FF. For most uses in the 70-200's range it gives you the f2.8 advantage and better handling, IS and IQ. Whilst the 70-300L is another option with better IQ than the 100-400, it lacks the range and option to use extenders. The larger aperture of the 70-200 is still more appealing to me. Rent a 500/f4 for those rare safaris.



Hi SK, thanks for sharing your experience, really helpful for me. Clearly I still have some thinking to do (and money to save.... )


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 18, 2013)

sk said:


> ...Better AF for moving subjects, marginal IQ difference at 400mm and its lower price are the only advantages with the 100-400 over the 70-200+2x...



Subjectively, the push/pull of the 100-400 can be an advantage for rapid re-framing (I love it for motorsports).


----------



## viggen61 (Jul 18, 2013)

The 70-200 f/2.8LII lists for $800 more than the 100-400 ($2,500 vs $1,700), adding a 2xIII extender ($500) puts you $1,300 poorer with the 70-200. Also, when there is a new 100-400, it will likely rival the 70-200 f/2.8II in price.

However, if, for you, the cost is not a problem, and the 201-400mm range is "occasional" use only, the extra two stops of aperture, coupled with outstanding IQ sans extender, and very recent IS/AF systems would suggest the 70-200 f/2.8 II is the lens of choice.

I've been using a 100-400 for about two years, and while I love it for wildlife, there are times I'd rather have had faster AF and/or better IS. The 100-400 is a 15-year-old design, and sometimes, it shows.


----------



## expatinasia (Jul 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have both. For travel, I recently got the 70-300L - better IQ than the 100-400, much more convenient size.



I think this is the better question - either the 70-300L or the 70-200 2.8 ii.

I also have both and the former is much more portable. Depends really how much of a difference 2.8 will make to you.


----------

