70-200 Vs 100-400

Hey all!

So I'm debating a revamp of my main lens. I currently own a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 w/IS and a 1.4x teleconverter. I love the focal range on it, but I know I can get sharper images with a 70-200 f/4 w/IS. I've talked with several people and compared the 70-200 2.8 w/IS to the f/4 w/IS and have found the f/4 to be generally sharper. Having said that, the main reason for my switch is I'm starting to get more into photo-journalism and portrait photography, due to work from my school so the 70-200 would be the better lens for those situations. Still, I love doing wildlife and BIF, so I want to keep the range I get with my 100-400. I'm wondering if I got a 70-200 f/4 and a 2x teleconverter, would the quality still be better than the 100-400 at the 400mm range? And would it be worth the sacrifice of closing down the aperture to f/8 compared to the f5.6 of the 100-400?

Thanks guys!

Mike

Mike I can't speak from experience but from what I've read the 70-200 with the 2x teleconverter does not produce the best results. I would probably say that the 100-400 would work better for the wildlife and BIF. If $ is not an issue you could consider replacing the 100-400 with a 400mm 5.6 and the 70-200.

My assumption is that you cannot have both.

Not sure as I do not have either the 1.4TC nor 2.0TC. I do however have the 100-400 and the 70-200/4. The 70-200 is one of the sharpest lenses ever IMO. A friend took superb willdlife shots with it and a 1.4TC. If PJ and portrait is going to be the bulk of your work then the lens to best suit this is the lens to have and then the wildlife is secondary and a compromise is needed.

If it were me I'd keep the 100-400 and buy a 85/1.8 and zoom with my feet

Unfortunately, money is tight at the moment. In a "perfect world," I'd like to get the 70-200 and then grab a 500mm f/4 as well. The 500 is on that wish list, but it's going to be a year or two before I can snag one.

I'd love to keep the 100-400, but I can't afford to spend money on a lens I'm not going to consistently use. College students are pretty poor.

Hello

For photo journalism, I'd go with the 70-200, and then think about a WA, like 17-40, 10-22 etc... Faster the lens the better... if you have the cash though....Assuming you have a cropped body of course....

cheers

Well I decided to stick with the 100-400 for the time being. With the extent of different photography disciplines I'm working with, I figure keeping the maximum range is the best thing for me. I've decided to use the money I'd put to a new lens into buying a new SLR. My Mk1 is starting to get out-dated with noise control, so I think a 7D is the way to go. Thanks for all the input guys!

Mike

Mike,

It's my understanding that Canon intends to start producing an updated version of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with better IS and, perhaps, better optics by April 1. That may make the switch more compelling, especially if image quality with the 2x improves.

--Gib

Gib,

I've heard about the new 70-200 coming out. And that's another thing that's making me think to wait on getting a new lens. After a lot of consideration, a new camera is my biggest need at the moment. I'll wait for the 70-200 to come out and see what the reviews are before rethinking changing lenses.
Thanks!

Mike

The new 70-200 F2.8 is nearly twice the price of the old one in the UK its 2800 GBP, not sure of the price stateside

Dave