# 70-200 f2.8 IS ii vs. 100-400 ii for Landscapes



## j-nord (May 10, 2016)

I am torn between the 70-200ii and 100-400ii specifically as they apply to landscapes. I will be shooting mostly handheld @ f5.6 or f8 with some f4 and f11. Currently will be paired with a 6D but will likely upgrade to a 5DSR with in a year. I have a good idea of the pros/cons for these lenses as they apply to other genres of photography but landscape performance is probably the most important to me.

As I see it the biggest difference is the 70mm on the 70-200ii. As a pixelpeeper, is there any noticeable difference in IQ for the shared focal lengths? How does the IQ of the 70-200ii+1.4xiii compare to 300mm on the 100-400? With the 100-400 I think I would still need a 24-70/24-105 in my kit whereas I could pair the 70-200 with a UWA zoom but more likely a 24 prime. Any input is appreciated!


----------



## bluenoser1993 (May 10, 2016)

You can compare the 300mm at this link:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 11, 2016)

You likely want even performance across the field of view for landscapes. Lenses in general do better when stopped down. The 70-200mm f/2.8L II is noticeably better in this regard. For common focal lengths, I'd pick it. Even with a 1.4X TC the 70-200 will likely have equal or better edges and corners at f/5.6.

The 100-400 excels at sports and wildlife while having decent edges and corners.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 11, 2016)

Splitting hairs for the most part -- both are excellent in the native ranges. 100-400 II is better above 200mm as compared to the 70-200 with extenders, 70-200 is better at the lower part of the common range.

The more important part is which one will be a better fit in your kit given the lenses you have/will have. If you don't want to use the midrange zoom, you could pair either 70-200/100-400 with 50 prime and whatever you want to use on the wider end (24 prime or UWA zoom). If you choose the 100-400 II, you'll have a longer native focal length range while you'll have a better portrait/low light sports lens with the 70-200. So it comes down to secondary factors.

For me, I choose the 70-200 when on smaller fields or for portraits. I choose the 100-400 for larger fields and for travel (i.e. zoos and daytrips). And for landscapes, I'll use whichever one happens to be in the bag at the time.


----------



## j-nord (May 11, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You likely want even performance across the field of view for landscapes. Lenses in general do better when stopped down. The 70-200mm f/2.8L II is noticeably better in this regard. For common focal lengths, I'd pick it. Even with a 1.4X TC the 70-200 will likely have equal or better edges and corners at f/5.6.
> 
> The 100-400 excels at sports and wildlife while having decent edges and corners.





Random Orbits said:


> Splitting hairs for the most part -- both are excellent in the native ranges. 100-400 II is better above 200mm as compared to the 70-200 with extenders, 70-200 is better at the lower part of the common range.




I agree about wanting sharpness across the frame but I've been seeing a lot of conflicting information about the 70-200ii + TCs as compared to the 100-400ii. 

For example, The Digital Picture lens comparison charts show the 100-400ii as considerably sharper @ 300 and 400 and the 70-200 loses considerable detail in the mid frame and corners. Maybe just a terrible copy of the extenders and/or 70-200? 

Other side by side comparisons I've seen show the 70-200ii +2x TC as sharper than the 100-400ii @ 400 as seen here: https://youtu.be/n9zWpihW8IE

In many anecdotal discussions people report one lens is better @400 or the other or they are about the same. Is this simply copy variance with the 70-200 and/or 2xiii? Lens rentals.com reports very low copy variance with the 100-400ii. Are there other good tests/comparisons out there?

If it was simply a matter of one lens vs another, Id be less concerned but since I'm making additional changes to my kit some what based around this decision, there is more at play.

Thanks for the input!


----------



## Random Orbits (May 11, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I agree about wanting sharpness across the frame but I've been seeing a lot of conflicting information about the 70-200ii + TCs as compared to the 100-400ii.
> 
> For example, The Digital Picture lens comparison charts show the 100-400ii as considerably sharper @ 300 and 400 and the 70-200 loses considerable detail in the mid frame and corners. Maybe just a terrible copy of the extenders and/or 70-200?
> 
> ...



My experience has been similar to what is shown in TDP. The 70-200 II is the best at 70mm (compared to other 70-xxx and to 24-70 f/2.8 II). The 70-200 II degrades with 1.4x but is similar to 70-300L and 100-400 (original) at 300 and is slightly worse than the 100-400 (original) at 400. The new 100-400 II handily beats the original 100-400 and the 70-200 II with TCs (1.4 or 2x).

I had the original 100-400 but didn't use it much because the 70-200 II is so versatile and was only slightly behind the IQ of the 100-400s with TCs attached. The 100-400 definitely won in handling but I usually opted for the 70-200 because the bare lens was better and used TCs for occasional use. The 70-200 also used to be my most used lens. Now... the 24-70 is the most used. I shoot more pictures than ever before above 70mm, but the 100-400 II has taken about half what the 70-200 II was use for.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 17, 2016)

I have the basic EF 70-200mm f4L USM and the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II. Both I would say have different uses its not really an either / or. 
The 70-200mm works as a portrait lens whereas the 100-400mm doesnt, however the 100-400mm is great for isolating subjects in landscape.


----------

