# 70-300 L vs 100-400 L vs. 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkI with Extender



## papa-razzi (Mar 3, 2012)

I have a 7D, and spring is coming in the US and that means kids sports shooting.
Track & Field, Baseball, Soccer. All outside, mostly good light - except for some overcast days.

I have been itching for a 70-300 L and am about to pull the trigger, but ..... there are 2 other options for me.
- I have a 70-200 f/2.8L IS MkI, would adding an extender to this be just as good?
- How about the 100-400 L? It gives more reach, but the IS and AF are old vs the 70-300L

For those of you who have used these lenses, esp on a 7D, I would appreciate your thoughts & suggestions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2012)

papa-razzi said:


> - I have a 70-200 f/2.8L IS MkI, would adding an extender to this be just as good?
> - How about the 100-400 L? It gives more reach, but the IS and AF are old vs the 70-300L



The IQ of the 70-200/2.8 MkI + 1.4x will fall short of the 70-300L - substantially, in fact. Also, the TC will slow down the AF. The 70-200/2.8 MkII + 1.4x would come quite close to the 70-300L for IQ, but at a much higher cost. But, with a 70-200/2.8 + 1.4x, you'd have one more stop of light at the long end. Still, I'd not recommend planning to routinely use a TC, but rather, get the focal length you need.

The 100-400 isn't as sharp as the 70-300L; the AF is quite fast, and the less effective IS will likely not be a huge deal as you'll be shooting mostly at faster shutter speeds anyway, I would think. 

Really, I think the choice should be between the 70-300L and the 100-400, and that choice mainly comes down to whether or not you need the extra 100mm. If you do, the 100-400 is the way to go, and if not, the 70-300L is a better choice.


----------



## papa-razzi (Mar 3, 2012)

Thanks Neuro. I will be using fast shutter speeds as you said, so IS isn't a big deal. I would prefer better sharpness over the length, as in most cases I can position myself close enough where 300 is OK.

I've never used a TC, so I appreciate the insight.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70-200/2.8 MkII + 1.4x would come quite close to the 70-300L for IQ, but at a much higher cost.


... and weight! If you're not shooting with a monopod, you might find that it's not exactly fun to have a 2kg+ apparatus to carry around and hold at eye level. Furthermore, a TC gives you longer reach, but of course you have to put it on and off for that.

I just got the 70-300L and am extremely happy with it (see the last 70-300 threads). It is very sharp, and if not the problem is bad af or simply motion blur - IS doesn't freeze the world around you.


----------



## papa-razzi (Mar 6, 2012)

I pulled the trigger on the 70-300L.
thanks for the feedback!


----------



## eos650 (Mar 6, 2012)

I think you made a good choice. I have the 100-400L, 70-300L and the 70-200L non IS. The 70-300 would be my 1st choice for track and soccer, on a crop body. The 100-400 is bigger and heavier and can be very limiting, when the action get's up close. Having the extra field of view at 70mm makes a big difference.

For baseball, on the other hand, I prefer the 100-400, but the 70-300 is still a very good choice. Just position yourself accordingly and any of these lenses should work well.


----------

