# Sell 70-200 2.8 II and keep 100-400 II?



## Winddoc (May 14, 2015)

Since I picked up the new 100-400 II, my beloved 70-200 II has been sitting unused. I tend to shoot a lot at the mid-long range of the 100-400 for sports especially, but something in my gut says to keep the 70-200 for portrait/low light work. As much as I love it, it's hard to justify the expense of the 70-200 for the odd shoot though (I'm no pro). Don't want to kick myself later if I sell it now. Is there too much overlap for these lenses, making them a little redundant or are they really complimentary? 

Any thoughts?


----------



## FEBS (May 14, 2015)

I have both lenses, but would NEVER think about selling my 70-200 2.8 II. I regular use it for sports. Motor cross does not need more then 200 mm but needs a fast focussing lens. No lens better here then the 70-200. Also for inside sports, for which the 2.8 is a big advantage. You already have both, so you don't need it for financing the 100-400. So, keep that 70-200.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 14, 2015)

Besides the 70-200, you have anything at f2.8 or faster for indoor? Maybe add 85 f1.8 or 135L for indoor and keep 100-400 II for outdoor.

I see no reason to keep 70-200 & 100-400 II if you ONLY shoot outdoor.


----------



## bereninga (May 14, 2015)

As an owner of neither, I'd keep both if I were you. ;D I agree that one is for indoors and the other for outdoors. They're both used for different things.


----------



## LukasS (May 14, 2015)

I have both lenses (tho the 70-200 mkI) and like yourself the shorter one is at the moment sitting, but I would not consider selling it. As you said, it's great for portrait shoots, as well as sports (smaller places ie. tennis courts or volleyball field) and many other uses, for me it didn't lost its purpose and value at all. 

It's just that in my finite amount of time I have now more choices what I can shoot with those both lenses and they will ultimately be used less on average. I have the shorter one for 11 years now so with this long history, pictures taken and no need for cash - there is no way I will sell it (maybe for mkIII with IS and weather sealing like the 100-400 one .


----------



## Winddoc (May 14, 2015)

Thanks for the replies. I do mostly shoot outside, but it looks like holding on to the 70-200 is a good idea. Cheers.


----------



## docsmith (May 14, 2015)

I have the 70-200 II and the 100-400 Mk 1. The 100-400 Mk 1 has sat essentially idle since I got the 70-200 II. 

But, if you do not have to sell one, don't. Wait to see if one goes idle vs the other. But, do try the 70-200 II with TCs. It is really good. 

Personally, I see the 70-200 II as very versatile. It covers a great range well giving you f/2.8. But, if you want a little more reach you have a very good 98-280 f/4 lens with a 1.4TC or a good 140-400 f/5.6 lens with a 2x TC. I've played with the 2xTC on the 70-200 II vs the 100-400 Mk 1. The 100-400 is a bit better, but not by much. Really it is the loss of contrast that I notice. Granted, I suspect the difference is more pronounced with the 100-400 II. 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


But still, if you are just a hobbyist, and have to pick one lens, I suspect the 70-200 II plus TCs will give you more options and versatility.


----------



## Starphotog (May 14, 2015)

I have both and i've been a pro for 39yrs. I can tell you that there is NO comparison the 100-400 is better in every way for OUTDOOR shots! The 70-200 II is better for indoor shots! Actually ive used the 100-400 for 5 months and it has no equal for any outdoor sports for the money! YES ive used the EF 200-400 f4 and for the $$ the 100-400 is a MUCH better value! The 70-200 with an extender does not come even close to the 100-400 in IQ..NO WAY!! Racing, softball, baseball, soccer., track....ANY daytime or well lite outdoor event the 100-400 is better than the 70-200!!! hands down!!


----------



## [email protected] (May 15, 2015)

I was thinking the same thing. After going a few months without touching the 70-200 (never thought that would happen), I started to think maybe I could sell it to start a seed fund for an f/4 big white someday.

I shoot mostly wildlife. The more I thought, though, the more I realized that I really have two modes of shooting wildlife - in the woods and out of the woods. Out the the woods, the 100-400 is tough to beat. But in the woods, the extra couple hundreds of millimeters just makes you miss the birds, and you're at 5.6 and your ISO is ratcheting up. 

So, upon thinking about it, I started taking the 70-200 out in a more considered way, depending on the terrain I was going to traverse. I even brought *both* along, the 70-200 on a full frame body, on some hikes, but that's quite a bit of weight to carry. 

In the past few weeks, I've used my 70-200 more and really appreciate its niche, but I will say that its niche really has narrowed to woods/indoor events/etc. 

-tig

PS: Another reason the 70-200 has taken a vacation is the growing collection of Sigma Art primes. If I can get away with short focal lengths, I'll stick one of those on my second body, and f/2.8 will seem downright dark. Not that the Sigmas are terribly much lighter than the 70-200.


----------



## johnnycash (May 16, 2015)

Winddoc said:


> Since I picked up the new 100-400 II, my beloved 70-200 II has been sitting unused. I tend to shoot a lot at the mid-long range of the 100-400 for sports especially, but something in my gut says to keep the 70-200 for portrait/low light work. As much as I love it, it's hard to justify the expense of the 70-200 for the odd shoot though (I'm no pro). Don't want to kick myself later if I sell it now. Is there too much overlap for these lenses, making them a little redundant or are they really complimentary?
> 
> Any thoughts?



Keep it. Even if it's redundant to you now, it's one of the best lenses from the current Canon lineup and you may find yourself wanting to use it on special occasions.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 18, 2015)

Two great and very different lenses. Keep both!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 18, 2015)

If you don't use it, sell it! The price is dropping, so you can buy one later if you need it. Don't keep a expensive lens around just because someone else likes to use theirs. We all have our own personal photography likes and dislikes.


----------



## meywd (May 18, 2015)

I sold my 100-400 MK I to get the 70-200 2.8 IS MK II with 2x TC II, so I would never sell it, still the 100-400 II is better than the first version and so its a different story, I am not a pro as well, so yeah budget matters, and only you can decide which to keep based on your current gear and needs.

However here are somethings to consider:


What do you shoot most?

Do you shoot Weddings?Portraits?Indoor Sports? if no then sell it, if yes; do you like bokeh more or sharpness? do you want better low light performance or the zoom versatility? as you may already know, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is the sharpest lens in the focal range at this price, however you can get up to two lenses to replace from the following list (135L, 85L, 50L, 35L, 50 Art, 35 Art) you can get these for low light and extreme bokeh.


Do you care about sharpness?

Some said that the 100-400 MK I is better than the 70-200 II with extender, I guess it depends on sample variation, but that wasn't the case with me, below is a 100% crop of a shot taken with the 70-200 2.8 IS II with the 2x TC II @ 400mm 1/1000 f/5.6 ISO 400 with the 5D3, the image is straight out of LR with no sharpness added except for the default value LR does, of course it may not be as sharp as the 100-400 II - which is why I plan on getting one - but I guess its good enough, most of the time though I don't get images as good as this one, which is only caused by my lack of skill.


How strong are you?

Yes really, how strong are you? do you like carrying that bag with both the 100-400 II and the 70-200 II?


Which lenses do you have?

Do you have mid range zooms? ultra wides? nifty 50? this overlaps with the first point but even if you don't shoot landscapes its a must to have a mid range zoom or ultra wide zoom, you can get 16-35 f/4 IS and the 24-70 f.4 IS for the 70-200 II and little extra which covers you for the full range, you may have these and want to invest for the new 11-24.

In the end it depends on what you want and need, only you can decide.

*Edit*: for comparison sake I add an image taken with the 100-400 I on the 600D, I know its not a fair comparison but that is what I had at the time, the shot was taken @ 400mm 1/640 f/6.3 ISO 100


----------

