70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions? - Page 3
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 03-03-2015   #21
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
Why not the 100-400 ii then?
Even more reach
...can't speak for others, but the 100-400L II was not around when I bought 70-300L. In due course I will get my hands on one and give it a thorough test, if it beats 70-300L and is not much heavier, 70-300L might go in favor of 100-400L II, but not at the current pricelevel, maybe in a year

...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 03-03-2015   #22
F1 Camel
 
stef@apl's Avatar
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 3,328
CamelKarma: 783595
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

I occasionally shoot indoor events and could use that constant aperture of the 70-200. I just haven't for a while though.
stef@apl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2015   #23
F1 Camel
 
Golem's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,791
CamelKarma: 683702
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

[quote=eosxt;2176386]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max@Home View Post
...same here, using 70-300L so much more when I
need length that I sold 70-200F2.8L IS II...

...if you don't use it, don't buy it or sell it...


Great after worrying for so long about dumping 2 G's
on this everyone is saying theirs is gathering dust. .
ah watchya going do??
Watchagonna do is USE it. It is what it is, which is
a very fine medium tele and there's no reason NOT
to use it and love it. Perznally I'da got the speed by
going with the Mk3 and it's improved hi-ISO vs the
old 60D. But then, I work in the dark so I can't join
the "Glass First" cult. I'm with "Hi-ISO First" but I'd
never post that as "advice" for you, cuz it's not for
you [or anyone else] .... it's just My Way, and it's
the most appropriate path to My Perznal Results.

You have an entire thread of expert internet advice
behind your decision. It cost you nothing to ask and
you got what you paid for ... even double what you
paid for. Value it at retail.

You have a fine, versatile lens there, and if you do
ever switch to FF, it has the image coverage for FF,
altho it will fill a slightly different niche. Now the
time is past by for posting text about the lens and
it's now time to be posting RESULTS

Thaz why I'm not "Glass First" cuz I'm "Results First".
Try it. It's fun.


`
Golem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2015   #24
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?

I was just kidding in the above post. Im very happy with my purchase. I'm going to shoot a cheer competition next weekend that it will be perfect for. Ill post some examples. There is a portrait i took in its in the portrait section. Over the next week im going to use it for both action and portrait. I also have a karate tournament comming up in April
__________________
It's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission
eosxt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2017   #25
Alpaca
 
Posts: 5
CamelKarma: 10
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

My hubby surprised me with a new lens of my choice

This lens will shoot indoor high school wrestling

I thought for sure I would want the Canon 70-200mm IS 2.8 but now I am having doubts that maybe the Canon 70-200mm IS 4.0 would be just as good and it's half the weight! (Not to mention cheaper)

It would shoot with a Canon Mark III and it seems I can just ramp up the ISO with the 4.0 to equal the light of a 2.8. Am I correct for thinking this?
I know the DOF is nicer with the 2.8 but think I would carry the lens more if it was lighter in weight.

I shoot stock as a hobby too, but have a only a handful of hours per year.

Please help me make my decision before the season comes in a few weeks.
Thanks Guys!
bloobirdies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2017   #26
Guanaco
 
Location: Strayl-ya
Posts: 291
CamelKarma: 185
Editing OK?: Ask first
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

bloobirdies, you asked exactly the same question in another thread.

I responded to your question there.

[LINK]

WW
William W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2017   #27
Vicuna
 
Surfwooder's Avatar
 
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Posts: 186
CamelKarma: 301
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

My first thought about indoor sports spawns this question. What indoor sport are you shooting? I would not attempt shooting sports indoor with less than a lens with f2.8. If the sport is basketball, you'll be shooting some pretty fast action. I'd like the luxury of a zoom, but I've found in gyms the 70-200mm is just to short at the 200mm end. 300mm "L" quality would have to do at minimum, and it comes with a 2.8. You will have to sit in one place and not run around the court to get "that shot" you'll have to much stuff strapped to your body. Plus, you'll have to quick change the lenses as you shoot. Don't forget the gym lighting, it can cause havoc to your shots depending on white balance, and type of lighting. I'd make a trip to the gym and check the lights. I would take a light meter, and check the ISO value settings. Leave the converters home. The focus speed will be slowed down enough without them. Good luck
__________________
My basic equipment:Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, Canon EOS 7D Mark II, Canon EOS 7D Classic, Canon EOS 50D, and Canon EOS 6D, EF-S 10-22mm Ultra Wide Angle, Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS STM, Canon EF 40mm STM, Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM, Canon EF 100mm f2.8L macro USM. Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM,Tamron 18-270mm VC walk-around lens, Tamron 150-600mm, Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD lens, Rokinon 8mm fisheye, Canon EF 50mm STM, Tele-converters: 1.4 Kenko, 2X Tamron, Post Processing: Adobe PS, Adobe Lightroom, X-rite Passport Color Checker, Other things I shoot with, Walther PPK 380, Bursa CC 380, Glock 17 9mm. And Canon Vixia M52 camcorder. I've also added an array of Cokin ND filters.
Surfwooder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2017   #28
Dromedary
 
Didereaux's Avatar
 
Location: swamplands of East Texas
Posts: 1,059
CamelKarma: 1543000
Editing OK?: Ask First
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?
We own both and a 2X so this is from experience (not the 100-400 II). They each have their uses. and so on occasion I use the 70-200 on the crop frame 7d2 and with the 2X that gives me approx 600mm. HOWEVER remember that a 2x will cost you 2 stops! So you lose any speed advantage. The pro is that the 70-200 w/2x is much lighter to carry around, and if you do not need the extra reach then it's light gathering advantage shines through. Both our lens' have excellent image quality...the 70-200 does have a slight advantage on the lower end though, as well as a slight/marginal advantage when shot wide open. If you are going to be shooting sports, or wildlife go with the Sigma 150-600 C (lots lighter, and half the price of the S and almost unnoticable difference in IQ) Again I use the bigSig on the crop frame fro the apparent ~900mm reach.

btw you did not mention, or I missed it, what camera body are you gong to be using? For indor sports and such I found that the 6D's and 7D2 low light capabilities really made the f4 lens practical to use indoors. The new sensors are alleviating alot of stress about having lower Fstops imo
Hope this helps.
Didereaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2017   #29
Llama
 
Promapper's Avatar
 
Location: Southern Tennessee, U.S.
Posts: 755
CamelKarma: 1112852
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

The 300 2.8 is definitely a winner for anything fast.
__________________
Greg, (ProMapper)
"A good photograph is knowing where to stand." Ansel Adams
Promapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2017   #30
Guanaco
 
Location: Strayl-ya
Posts: 291
CamelKarma: 185
Editing OK?: Ask first
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: 70-200 w/2x Vs 100-400 opinions?

Probably worthwhile mentioning that the Opening Post to this conversation was made in January 2015.

Subsequently, the OP made a purchase (see post #14 dated February 2015).

This conversation was bumped-up in position on this forum, only due to a new question which was asked by 'bloobirdies', (see post #25, October 2017)

WW


__________________
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.
William W is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Share this topic:

Thread Tools
Display Modes