70-200 F4.0 or 100-400? witch has better quality?

[Mitchell]

i was woundering witch would be better? 70-200? or 100-400 witch is sharper? i dont mind how heavy or F/Stop

is the 70-200 better in sharpness becuase the 100-400 has a long zoom and does it cut down mutch on the quality of the picture?..

(i wana start saving for one)


one other thing is i dont really want to 100-400 for zoom i'll just get a bigger lens for that..

[bob_r]

I had a 70-200 f/2.8 rather than the f/4, but after getting the 100-400, the 70-200 stayed in the bag. I finally sold my 70-200 since I so rarely used it. There were some copies of the 100-400 that were soft when the lens first came out, so if you're buying used, that could be an issue. I haven't heard of any issues with the 100-400's produced in the last few years. I don't think you'll find any version of the 70-200 or the newer 100-400's wanting for sharpness. None of them will disappoint you.

"one other thing is i dont really want to 100-400 for zoom i'll just get a bigger lens for that.."
I'm not sure what this means, but if you're wondering if the 100-400 is sharp all the way through it's range, mine is.

Bob R

[Mitchell]

thanks

one other thing is i dont really want to 100-400 for zoom i'll just get a bigger lens for that..

i ment they do about the same (there bolth a mid range) i guess, so that was what i ment.

so there both about equal in sharpness?

[bob_r]

They are both very sharp. I've probably posted these before, but I'll post them again to give you an idea of how sharp they are.

Here are some shots taken with a 30D and the 70-200 f/2.8 at the zoo's aviary.






I don't have any zoo shots taken with the 100-400, but here are a few I took in by back yard.

(this one was shot through a storm door)


Didn't have my macro lens with me, so pressed the 100-400 into service for a closeup.


Here's a bird shot taken in my back yard with the 100-400.


and a moon shot.


Hope this was enough to give you an idea. I didn't have a lot of shots taken with the 70-200, but that should be enough to show that it is a sharp lens.

Bob R

[Mitchell]

thanks for the pictures that helped alot..
nice photo's to



still cant decide though.

[bob_r]

thanks for the pictures that helped alot..
nice photo's to



still cant decide though.

The main question is what are you planning to shoot? Once you can answer that question, I believe you'll be able to decide. I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 to shoot equestrian events in indoor arenas. When they started having the events outdoors, I no longer needed that lens. The 100-400 is a fantastic lens for wildlife, birds or anytime you need the extra reach. It has double the reach of the 70-200 and is probably lighter that my 70-200 f/2.8 was (it's not lighter than an f/4).

Until you've identified what you're planning on shooting, I don't believe you'll be able to make an informed decision. I look at each lens as a tool that helps me accomplish a specific task. Until you know what the task is, how could you possibly select the proper tool?

Bob R

[jk]

Bob r.

The 100-400 lens you speak of. Can you give some more information - brand, f stops etc? I have been given a gift certificate for a lens. I know there is a limit on the price but I am really in the hunt for a zoom lens now. I like taking photos of birds, wildlife etc close and far. Love your post of the dragonfly!! The lens must have VR. I have a Nikon D40X so it must have auto focus via the silent wave motor in the lens. I currently have a 18-135Nikor. Thanks for any input from anyone.

JK

[bob_r]

JK,

I wish I could recommend the 100-400 to you, but it is a Canon (and it does have IS). Nikon has a terrific 200-400VR lens, but it's very pricey (around $5,000). I'm not familiar with Nikon glass so can't give you a recommendation. Hopefully, someone that shoots Nikon will be able to answer your question. You might want to start a new post and just ask. Since this was a Canon lens question, the other Nikon shooters may not read all the posts in this thread. Good luck with your search.

Bob R

[Mitchell]

Well i wana shoot close wildlife 50 yards or closer and landscapes (not wide angle) but i wouldent mind that extra reach that the other lens offers.

one nice thing that i like about the 70-200 is the F-stop it stays the same to matter what.
one other thing i like to shoot is macro/close shots textures on the ground and stuff like that so what do you think is the better macro lens?

[bob_r]

Well i wana shoot close wildlife 50 yards or closer and landscapes (not wide angle) but i wouldent mind that extra reach that the other lens offers.

one nice thing that i like about the 70-200 is the F-stop it stays the same to matter what.
one other thing i like to shoot is macro/close shots textures on the ground and stuff like that so what do you think is the better macro lens?

Since you plan on shooting wildlife, I'd recommend the 100-400. It allows you to fill the frame with your subject where that's simply not possible at 50 yards with a 70-200. Also, I wouldn't be too concerned about the f/stop. The difference between the two lenses you asked about is one f/stop and the 100-400 has IS (you didn't mention if you were also looking at the 70-200 f/4 with IS).

Most lenses can shoot closeups, especially if you add closeup tubes, but none are a real substitute for a macro lens. The pic of the dragon fly in my previous post and this one were shot with just the 100-400. I've never tried using closeup tubes with it since I have a macro lens.

You can get a lot of detail with the 100-400 and I would imagine the 70-200 would produce similar results.


I don't think either lens can compete with a macro lens. This was shot with a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro with a Sigma 1.4x TC attached.


Bob R

[Mitchell]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!! im going Crazy thining about it... im leaning to the 100-400.
but the 100-400 i dont llike becuase for landscapes its zoomed in prettey far and with a crop camera its really far.

Another queston, does the 100-400 have a part that comes out the front when u zoom it?

i had a chance to use the 70-200 last summer at the canon in the parks workshop and i really liked it, but dont know if i will like the 100-400 better...

[bob_r]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!! im going Crazy thining about it... im leaning to the 100-400.
but the 100-400 i dont llike becuase for landscapes its zoomed in prettey far and with a crop camera its really far.

Another queston, does the 100-400 have a part that comes out the front when u zoom it?

i had a chance to use the 70-200 last summer at the canon in the parks workshop and i really liked it, but dont know if i will like the 100-400 better...

Neither lens is a landscape lens, but there really isn't a lot of difference between 70mm and 100mm for outdoor shots. You already have wider lenses for landscapes so don't know why that would be a problem.

The 100-400 does not rotate. It is a push-pull design and it will probably take about 15 minutes to get used to. I wondered how I would like it before getting it, but it now that I have one, it seems very natural.

Since you have tried the 70-200 and not the 100-400, have you considered renting a 100-400 for a few days?

Bob R

[Edd]

Bob,

Are both of these lenses that you post shots of part of the Canon "L" range ????

Cheers

Ed

[bob_r]

Bob,

Are both of these lenses that you post shots of part of the Canon "L" range ????

Cheers

Ed

Ed,

Yes, all the different Canon 70-200 versions and the 100-400 are "L" models.

Bob R

[gldiana]

I sold my 70-200 f/4 recently to replace it with the 100-400, which is far superior in terms of quality.
In both lenses the rotating elements are inside, so you can use filters like a split ND without worrying about the auto-focus changing its position.