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......

[jrhoffman75]

You need to determine how often you will be wanting greater than 200mm.

Once you exceed 200mm both lenses are basically f/5.6 lenses (not sure exactly when the 100-400 transitions).

Once you exceed 200mm the 100-400 will be sharper and faster focusing.

Do you have a good lens that will fill the 70-100 gap (or don't see a need to fill that gap).

In other words, do you want a 100-400mm f/5.6 lens or do you want a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that can sometimes be a 400mm f/5.6 lens?

[cicopo]

Do either of these fit the length restriction? What about the 70-300 L IS which is a very good lens in both sharpness & IS.

[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]

---

@cicopo wrote:

Do either of these fit the length restriction? What about the 70-300 L IS which is a very good lens in both sharpness & IS.

---

Both lenses are nearly identical in size.  I love the size of the 100-400.  It's highly totable, compared to a 150-600mm. 

[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.