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

[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.

[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. 

[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.