PhotoCamel: Your friendly photo community, with free discussion forums, digital photography reviews, photo sharing, galleries, downloads, blogs, photography contests, and prizes.
PhotoCamel Directory Photo of the Week Photo of the Week
 

Go Back   PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > Cameras and Lenses > Canon Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-30-2008   #1
Llama
 
waple's Avatar
 
Posts: 823
waple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nice
CamelKarma: 594
Default Does it make sense to have a 70-200 and 100-400?

I've been waiting on getting a longer zoom like the Canon 100-400 but have been putting it off while waiting on the verdicts about the Sigma 150-500.

I currently own the Canon 70-200/f4 IS. I had the 150-500, there'd hardly any overlap between the two, so the 70-200 would remain my normal "event" lens (along with my 17-55). However, I'v read a lot of mixed reviews about the 150-500 and I may end up with the 100-400. I'd rather have the longer reach but I don't want to sacrifice much in quality.

The problem is, the 70-200 and 100-400 overlap so much. Plus, the 100-400 isn't a whole lot slower. It starts at f/4.5, goes to f/5 around 130mm and f/5.6 at about 250mm, so at 200 it'd still be at f5, only 2/3 stop slower than my current 70-200.

So I'm almost thinking that it'd be better to just sell my 70-200/4 and have just the 100-400, or if I really need it, get the 100-400 and 70-200/2.8.

I was, for a short while, considering the 400/5.6 but I think I'd really no like having no zoom. And from what I've seen and heard, it seems like it may not be that much better than the 100-400.

Thoughts?


__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
waple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008   #2
Camel Breath
 
aam1234's Avatar
 
Posts: 13,275
aam1234 strides over the forum like a knight in shining armoraam1234 strides over the forum like a knight in shining armoraam1234 strides over the forum like a knight in shining armoraam1234 strides over the forum like a knight in shining armoraam1234 strides over the forum like a knight in shining armoraam1234 strides over the forum like a knight in shining armoraam1234 strides over the forum like a knight in shining armoraam1234 strides over the forum like a knight in shining armoraam1234 strides over the forum like a knight in shining armoraam1234 strides over the forum like a knight in shining armoraam1234 strides over the forum like a knight in shining armor
CamelKarma: 551831
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Does it make sense to have a 70-200 and 100-400?

Quote:
Originally Posted by waple View Post
The problem is, the 70-200 and 100-400 overlap so much.
Not really. They are two different "animals", so to speak.
__________________
It's all about light, my friend.
aam1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008   #3
PhotoCamel Supporter DONATED
Photocamel Master
 
cyclohexane's Avatar
 
Location: SARATOGA, Calif., USA
Posts: 9,402
cyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armor
CamelKarma: 1064731
Editing OK?: No
Default Re: Does it make sense to have a 70-200 and 100-400?

What do you want to shoot with the 100-400 or the 150-500? The lack of a zoom may not actually be a disadvantage.

Get a 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter instead. Adding/removing the teleconverter will give you some more flexibility, especially since the 100-400 is a f/5.6 at the long end anyways, and the IQ at 300mm will be better than any of the other lenses mentioned.
__________________
-Michael
Nikon 1 & Apple iPhone 4
Find me on the web: Michael Chen Photo |Blog ("coming soon" since before the dinosaurs roamed the Earth)|SportsShooter | California Wildlife
cyclohexane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008   #4
Dromedary
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,047
JohnC is just really niceJohnC is just really niceJohnC is just really niceJohnC is just really niceJohnC is just really niceJohnC is just really nice
CamelKarma: 574
Default Re: Does it make sense to have a 70-200 and 100-400?

I'm with Michael. I had both. Sold the 100-400. Have a 300/4 and converter (though I sort of wish I had the 300/4 IS).
__________________
John Cornicello
Seattle, WA
http://www.johncornicello.com
JohnC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008   #5
Llama
 
waple's Avatar
 
Posts: 823
waple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nice
CamelKarma: 594
Default Re: Does it make sense to have a 70-200 and 100-400?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclohexane View Post
What do you want to shoot with the 100-400 or the 150-500? The lack of a zoom may not actually be a disadvantage.
I'd maily want to shoot birds and other small wildlife. I tried with my 70-200 and from 20ft away, I wasn't anywhere near filling the frame:



So I was really hoping for something that I could afford (and that $1200ish range is what I'd like to stay near), that would have some extra reach. I didn't think that 300mm + 1.4 would quite do it. I have a 1.4 that I was going to use on whatever I get, btw.
waple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008   #6
PhotoCamel Supporter DONATED
Photocamel Master
 
cyclohexane's Avatar
 
Location: SARATOGA, Calif., USA
Posts: 9,402
cyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorcyclohexane strides over the forum like a knight in shining armor
CamelKarma: 1064731
Editing OK?: No
Default Re: Does it make sense to have a 70-200 and 100-400?

Quote:
I have a 1.4 that I was going to use on whatever I get, btw.
1.4 + f/5.6 lens (400 or 100-400) + 40D = no AF.

There's no cost effective way to get over 300mm.
__________________
-Michael
Nikon 1 & Apple iPhone 4
Find me on the web: Michael Chen Photo |Blog ("coming soon" since before the dinosaurs roamed the Earth)|SportsShooter | California Wildlife
cyclohexane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008   #7
Llama
 
waple's Avatar
 
Posts: 823
waple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nice
CamelKarma: 594
Default Re: Does it make sense to have a 70-200 and 100-400?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclohexane View Post
1.4 + f/5.6 lens (400 or 100-400) + 40D = no AF.

There's no cost effective way to get over 300mm.
If I understand correctly, you can tape the three left pins on a Kenko Pro 1.4x (which is what I have) and you can then still AF on a 100-400.
waple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2008   #8
Alpaca
 
Location: Blyth, Northumberland, NE England
Posts: 30
Keith Reeder has a spectacular aura aboutKeith Reeder has a spectacular aura about
CamelKarma: 188
Editing OK?: No
Default Re: Does it make sense to have a 70-200 and 100-400?

Get the 100-400mm, Waple - IQ is not an issue (my 100-400 holds up against anything else mentioned here, and is better than any 300mm f/4 + 1.4x I've compared it with, and I've never seen anything from the 400mm f/5.6 prime that makes me think "I couldn't have done that...") and it provides a very welcome versatility...

No IQ issues here (all hand-held, incidentally - I will not be without IS):











Taping the pins works fine, though it's somewhat body-specific: that is, I used a taped 1.4x + 100-400 all the time on my 30D, but the same rig won't work at all on my 40D.
Keith Reeder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2008   #9
Llama
 
waple's Avatar
 
Posts: 823
waple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nicewaple is just really nice
CamelKarma: 594
Default Re: Does it make sense to have a 70-200 and 100-400?

Thanks Keith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Reeder View Post
Taping the pins works fine, though it's somewhat body-specific: that is, I used a taped 1.4x + 100-400 all the time on my 30D, but the same rig won't work at all on my 40D.
Is there any other way to get it to work with the 40D? I have a 30 and 40, but my plan is to eventually trade the 30 for a full frame.
waple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2008   #10
Alpaca
 
Location: Blyth, Northumberland, NE England
Posts: 30
Keith Reeder has a spectacular aura aboutKeith Reeder has a spectacular aura about
CamelKarma: 188
Editing OK?: No
Default Re: Does it make sense to have a 70-200 and 100-400?

Not that I've been able to find, Waple - I've tried the Canon and Kenko Pro 300 1.4s and with either, I just get hunting on the central AF point.

If however, I shift to a peripheral AF point, it will work: and (although it negates the point of using a TC) it will work on the centre point with the lens at c. 350mm or less.

I'll be honest though - I'm not missing the extra reach, because the 40D/100-400mm combo is just so good as it is...


__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
Keith Reeder is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

« PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > Cameras and Lenses > Canon Forum »


Share this topic:

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
100-400 IS, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 IS DO ? colonel Canon Forum 21 07-03-2008 05:14 PM
70-200 F2.8 IS with 2x convertor vs 100-400 IS Imagesgranted Canon Forum 7 04-29-2008 07:03 PM
70-200 f4 + TC or Tokina 400 f5.6? waple Canon Forum 2 03-05-2007 10:17 AM
70-200 VR or 80-400 VR? andynos Nikon Forum 11 10-14-2006 02:39 PM
70-200 2.8L IS + 1.4 Multiplier vs 100-400 L Lens.... PhotoJoe Canon Forum 5 04-25-2006 10:13 PM