Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens vs Canon EF 70-200mm f 2.8L IS II USM

[ilzho]

Ok, I need some help from you all.

The price difference on the above lenses, is not that much, so my question is, which one would you get for sports/wildlife photography?

I was originally leaning towards  Canon EF 70-200mm f 2.8L IS II USM, but for a little bit more money I can get a lot more focal length.

I thought you guys could give me some helpful info......

Thank you,

David

[TTMartin]

---

@ilzho wrote:

Ok, I need some help from you all.

The price difference on the above lenses, is not that much, so my question is, which one would you get for sports/wildlife photography?

I was originally leaning towards  Canon EF 70-200mm f 2.8L IS II USM, but for a little bit more money I can get a lot more focal length.

I thought you guys could give me some helpful info......

Thank you,

David

---

I would go with the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. 

Add an Extender EF 2X and you've got a 140-400 f/5.6 lens. The image quality of the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II with the teleconverter is somewhere between the old EF 100-400 L IS and the new EF 100-400 L IS II. Which is stlll very good.

So you can make the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II longer, there is nothing you can do to the EF 100-400 L IS II, to give you a wide f/2.8 aperture.

[ilzho]

Good point... Thank you.

[cicopo]

This question gets asked from time to time on aviation based forums & from the info I have absorbed from reading the threads the 100-400 ends up the right (or better) choice for air shows. 2X teleconverters slow the AF so I think it's important to define how the lens will be used. A slower AF will hamper using it for fast paced action.

[ilzho]

Want to use it mainly for horse racing, they rarely get over 40 mph.

I will use it for wildlife as well and other equine shots......

[diverhank]

---

@ilzho wrote:

Want to use it mainly for horse racing, they rarely get over 40 mph.

I will use it for wildlife as well and other equine shots......

---

For sports and wildlife, you're better off with the 100-400mm f/5.6L II.

[Waddizzle]

---

@diverhank wrote:

---

@ilzho wrote:

Want to use it mainly for horse racing, they rarely get over 40 mph.

I will use it for wildlife as well and other equine shots......

---

For sports and wildlife, you're better off with the 100-400mm f/5.6L II.

---

I am forced to agree with this conclusion.  At the short end its 70mm versus 100mm, which isn't much on a full frame camera.  On an APS-C camera, both lenses are kind of longish on the short end, and almost equally so. 

At the long end, the 100-400 is giving you double the reach, but not the f/2.8 speed.  For outdoor sports, that is not going to make a huge difference because many outdoor sports have lights.  It will make a difference indoors, though.

[ilzho]

So would an Extender EF 2X really hamper or slow the lens?

[TTMartin]

---

@ilzho wrote:

So would an Extender EF 2X really hamper or slow the lens?

---

You lose some image quality, but, as I already mentioned it is not significant with IQ falling between the old EF 100-400 L IS, and the new EF 100-400 L IS II.

As for the focus speed, this is where some people get confused. Canon intentionally slows the focus speed when using an extender, so that the focus change remains constant. If you are using a 2X TC and the lens still focused at it's 'normal' speed, the focus would be changing twice as fast. So, Canon has the focus change at 'half speed' when using a 2X TC, which means the camera is seeing the focus change at what it considers the 'normal' rate.

[diverhank]

---

@ilzho wrote:

So would an Extender EF 2X really hamper or slow the lens?

---

Yes. That's a given, especially with a 2X.  On top of that, the image quality suffers.  Most people uses the 1.4X because it has less impact.  I rarely use my 2X for this reason.

Having said that, plenty of people are using the 70-200mm f/2.8 with the 2X...but I'm willing to bet, if you do a survey, most people would prefer using the 100-400 or even the 400 f/5.6 over using the 70-200mm with the 2X.

In reality, most of us would have both the 70-200mm and something longer like the 100-400mm in our arsenal...the 70-200 excels in a lot of things, including wedding portraits and indoor sports...I'd get both if I were you but I'd get the 100-400mm first if budget does not permit getting both at the same time.