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.
 

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: 1,029
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: 17,630
CamelKarma: 3332465
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: 1,029
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: 1,029
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: 17,630
CamelKarma: 3332465
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: 9,079
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: 1,029
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: 9,079
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