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

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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?