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]

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.....

[diverhank]

---

@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.....

---

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... 🙂

[ebiggs1]

"...  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.

[Waddizzle]

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.