cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

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

ilzho
Rising Star

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

23 REPLIES 23

Ok, so this maybe a stupid question, so I apologize in advance....

 

If you are not a pro photographer, at what point do you say that's a big enough zoom lens?

Now if this is your lifestyle and get paid for taking pictures, I totally get it, but for the hobbyist, do you need super telephoto lens for $10K+?

I can hear the answers now... "of course I do", hahahaha.....Smiley Tongue


@ilzho wrote:

Ok, so this maybe a stupid question, so I apologize in advance....

 

If you are not a pro photographer, at what point do you say that's a big enough zoom lens?

Now if this is your lifestyle and get paid for taking pictures, I totally get it, but for the hobbyist, do you need super telephoto lens for $10K+?

I can hear the answers now... "of course I do", hahahaha.....Smiley Tongue


I think you got it backwards...the pros who do it for a living, use what they need to get the job done.  The non-pros (I'm one) who can afford it, go all out...why the heck not... 🙂

================================================
Diverhank's photos on Flickr

"...  do you need super telephoto lens for $10K+?"

 

The Tamron and Sigma 150-600's are no where near 10 large. Both are around $1000.  If you shoot wildlife, yes, you do need one of these or something similar. It is a hobby.  It costs to play.

EB
EOS 1D, EOS 1D MK IIn, EOS 1D MK III, EOS 1Ds MK III, EOS 1D MK IV and EOS 1DX and many lenses.

One thing the 100-400 has going for it over the 150-600 is size.  The 100-400 and 70-200 [f/2.8 version] lenses are almost identical in size.  I can pack both into my backpack, Ruggard Thunderhead 75, both with tripod foot and hood attached, and still have room for 3 more lenses and two bodies with grips.

 

If I pack the 150-600, it takes the room of the 100-400, 2 lenses, and a camera body.  Plus, the hood doesn't fit very well in the bag.  When I carry the 150-600, I invariably carry it in its' own case, not in my backpack, and no long walks.  Big Siggy doesn't fit into my Lowepro TopLoader holster, either, but either the 70-200 or 100-400 can.

 

I like to travel light when I'm on foot, and big Siggy makes me leave lenses behind.  I usually go 16-35 and 70-200.  Or, I'll go 24-105 and 100-400.  Bringing big Siggy means I have leave two out of those four behind, and a camera body, if I use my backpack.  I'll go with one of those pairs, or just big Siggy when I'm on foot.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Enjoying photography since 1972."
Announcements