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

[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.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@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.

---

Buy the 70-200 and possibly a 1.4 extender. Outdoor lights at sports venues usually aren't as bright as your eyes think they are. At your local horse track, they almost certainly won't be.

A 100-400mm f/5.6 lens is nearly useless indoors. It's too long for most rooms (especially on an APS-C camera) and too slow for most indoor lighting conditions.

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

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.

---

Buy the 70-200 and possibly a 1.4 extender. Outdoor lights at sports venues usually aren't as bright as your eyes think they are. At your local horse track, they almost certainly won't be.

A 100-400mm f/5.6 lens is nearly useless indoors. It's too long for most rooms (especially on an APS-C camera) and too slow for most indoor lighting conditions.

---

I was going to comment on the 'outdoor sports have lights' thing also. Even at pro and college venues you'll be at ISO 3200-6400 with an f/5.6 lens. At many high school venues you're at those ISOs with an f/2.8 lens. The OP described a small local track, if they have lighting at all, it is likely to be on the marginal side. 

[ebiggs1]

To me the question you asked is should I buy the best lens in the world or another lens that isn't.  So you have my answer.

Of course the correct answer is to get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens.  I don't recommend the 2x tele converter for any lens but the 1.4x does works fairly well on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens.  But.............

The beauty of a DSLR is the ability to use different lenses.  The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens should not be the last lens you will be getting. So the best solution is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens and later on one of the 150-600mm zooms on the market.  No matter what you say about the 100-400 it doesn't have 600mm.  And for wildlife photography 400mm is about the minimum focal length. 600mm is where it gets really good.

[ebiggs1]

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

Unless it is indoor sports.

[ebiggs1]

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

Everything suffers when you add one.  How much?  That is up to you not anyone else.  I don't like them and I don't use them.

I have used 1.4x, 1.6x, 1.7x, 2x, and even 3x.  The 1.4x does work fairly well on some lenses.  Some very limited lenses!

[ilzho]

I'll get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens.

I do not expect this to be the last lens I own, but it's a great one to have and if I need to get to 600mm or more, hopefully I will be in a financial position to do so when the time arises.

[ebiggs1]

"I'll get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens."

You can be satisified that you bought the best lens of its kind on the planet.  Your next decision will be the super zoom.  One of the 150-600mm is in order.  There are rumors that Canon is designing one of their own.  I am sure they do not like the fact that SIgma and Tamton have cornered that market segment.

Nikon has the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR Lens. A super zoom in that price rage and quality.