70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?
PhotoCamel: Your friendly photo community, with free discussion forums, digital photography reviews, photo sharing, galleries, downloads, blogs, photography contests, and prizes.
Photos of the Week Photos of the Week
 

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-25-2015   #1
Dromedary
 
Location: Philadelphia area (Ridley)
Posts: 1,028
CamelKarma: 416203
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

I was considering the new 100-400, but then thought the 70-200 would be faster and more versatile especially if I also got the 2x converter. I shoot indoor and outdoor sports and really thought the 100-400 would be perfect for baseball but would be lacking indoors due to the relatively small aperture. Right now I have the good 70-300, the 85 f/1.8, a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Any thoughts?

__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
__________________
It's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission
eosxt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2015   #2
Camel Breath
 
swampler's Avatar
 
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 17,589
CamelKarma: 3136915
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

If you can't afford both, then the 70-200 + 2x would be the most versatile with decent quality, though the AF will be a little slower than a bare lens alone.
__________________
Steve
swampler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2015   #3
Dromedary
 
Location: Philadelphia area (Ridley)
Posts: 1,028
CamelKarma: 416203
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swampler View Post
If you can't afford both, then the 70-200 + 2x would be the most versatile with decent quality, though the AF will be a little slower than a bare lens alone.
Would it be slower than my 70-300? That lens focus speed is adequate (except in al servo)
__________________
It's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission
eosxt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2015   #4
Dromedary
 
Location: Philadelphia area (Ridley)
Posts: 1,028
CamelKarma: 416203
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Btw, my 70-300 is the one with the gold ring, not the really good one with the red ring
__________________
It's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission
eosxt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2015   #5
Camel Breath
 
swampler's Avatar
 
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 17,589
CamelKarma: 3136915
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

The speed should be adequate in good light. You might try renting both to compare for yourself.
__________________
Steve
swampler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2015   #6
PhotoCamel Supporter DONATED
Photocamel Master
 
Max@Home's Avatar
 
Location: Castricum, The Netherlands
Posts: 9,077
CamelKarma: 690429
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eosxt View Post
I was considering the new 100-400, but then thought the 70-200 would be faster and more versatile especially if I also got the 2x converter. I shoot indoor and outdoor sports and really thought the 100-400 would be perfect for baseball but would be lacking indoors due to the relatively small aperture. Right now I have the good 70-300, the 85 f/1.8, a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Any thoughts?
70-200F2.8 comes in three flavours, 100-400 in two:

70-200F2.8L (NO IS) + 2.0x Type II : 400F5.6, but is slow to focus

70-200F2.8L IS 'I' + 2.0x type II : 400F5.6, focusses slower than 100-400 'I', cannot (yet) compare to 100-400 'II'

70-200F2.8 L IS II + 2.0x Type III : 400F5.6, focusses faster than 100-400 'I', cannot (yet) compare to 100-400 'II'

But from-what-I-read 100-400 'II' focusses faster than any 70-200+2.0x combination.

...and from what-I-know: you need a fast focussing lens for indoor sports, hire a 300F2.8 L IS and you'll know too

...€0.02...

Kindest regards,

Max@Home
__________________
...so far, so good...

Canon PowerShot G1X MkII, Canon PowerShot G3X, some accessories (hoods, flashes, filters, tripod) and some knowledge to use them
Max@Home is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2015   #7
Vicuna
 
rdalrt's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Posts: 68
CamelKarma: 20432
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

I have the new 100-400 II. It focuses very fast. On par with my 400 2.8 IS II. My 70-200 IS II with 2xIII extender is no match for it in focus speed. It isn't terrible, but there is still a hit in focus speed.

I would not even try the 100-400 for indoor sports. Outdoor daytime sports will be fine.

If you aren't strobing indoor sports, unless you are shooting a 1DX, 1D4, or 5D3 (maybe 7D II), stick to fast primes. You already have the 85. I also use a 135 f/2 and 200 f/2 when shooting indoor ambient sports. But you could go with a 35 f/2 (the newer one) if you prefer wider. I prefer to shoot tighter.

If you have one of the bodies I mentioned, you can get away with a 2.8 zoom for indoor sports at higher ISO's and some noise reduction in post processing.
__________________
Just Sports Photography
rdalrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2015   #8
Vicuna
 
NigelD's Avatar
 
Location: Cottingham
Posts: 115
CamelKarma: 1357379
Editing OK?: Ask first
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

I just got the 100-400 as well. It's blisteringly fast AF. Works very well with my Kenko 1.4X but doesn't with a 2X. I have 70-200 f4 IS USM as well and I think I'll be aiming for different subject matter with each lens. The 2.8 version of 70-200 is heavier than my f4 version which is really light to use, but I don't have 1st hand experience of that model. For me 560mm f8 suits what I do.
__________________
www.nigeldaltonphotography.com
NigelD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2015   #9
Dromedary
 
Location: Philadelphia area (Ridley)
Posts: 1,028
CamelKarma: 416203
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Just thinking outside the box, if I buy the 5dMIII instead i could easily double the IS O effectively turning my 70-300 f 4-5.6 into a 70-300 2.8-4.0
I realize it wouldn't be an L lens but I would still get the speed i was looking for
Would you rather have the 5dMIII with the 70-300 gold ring or the 60d with the 70-200?
__________________
It's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission
eosxt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2015   #10
PhotoCamel Supporter DONATED
Photocamel Master
 
Max@Home's Avatar
 
Location: Castricum, The Netherlands
Posts: 9,077
CamelKarma: 690429
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eosxt View Post
...I shoot indoor and outdoor sports...

Would you rather have the 5dMIII with the 70-300 gold ring or the 60d with the 70-200?
for the outdoor part the 5DIII with 70-300, for the indoor part 60D w/70-200F2.8 (any)... Indoor you need the F2.8 (or faster )

...€0.02...

Kindest regards,

Max@Home


__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
__________________
...so far, so good...

Canon PowerShot G1X MkII, Canon PowerShot G3X, some accessories (hoods, flashes, filters, tripod) and some knowledge to use them
Max@Home is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Share this topic:

Thread Tools
Display Modes