Canon 70-200L IS USM vs 100-400 IS
Posted on March 17th, 2010 by admin
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM or the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM
want to buy mine? ... but I won't sell it :-P
Don't be fooled by the field of view change, the 200 is still just a 200! It doesn't magically become a longer lens because you put it on a smaller sensor. You are just getting 62% of the full image, which makes it appear like the view you would get from a 320. You don't get more magnification.
You Don't Get More Zoom!
Of course a 200mm lens is always a 200 mm lens, be it on cropped sensors, on 35mm or MF or LF. Still, from a usage point of view, on LF it would not really be a telephoto lens. Whereas on a croppend sensor it certainly is.
Also, regarding camera filed of view (that makes your composition) and regarding the effect of camera shake relative to the size of your image (this makes your image quality), a 200mm lens on 1.6 crop behaves just as a 300mm lens on 35mm film or full frame sensors: Camera shake of the same amplitude will cause the same motion blur in the final print (if print size is the same from the crop camera and the full frame).
Another poster mentions coupling the lens with a 1.4 teleconverter. Even though the combination will slow the lens down a stop, it should still outperform the consumer lens. Good shooting.
By far the 70-200 is a sharper lens all around. My question is what sort of nature photography are you looking to shoot. Will you be able to get fairly close to the subjects? I have the benefit of being able to get very close to some of the subjects I shoot i.e. arms length, so the 70-200 is great in that situation for my style of shooting. Some subjects I just can't, or wouldn't want to, get close to, hence the longer focal length. I chose the 100-400 for the zoom and IS and it's ability to be able to shoot these subject more naturally without the hassle of a tripod, etc. Would love to go to a prime 400 f/5.6 since it is sharper, but it does not have IS. Can't have it all.
Honestly the ONLY reason I sold it was money... the bigma was cheaper to keep and since I have a good copy of it (matched IQ of the 100-400L) it was a no brainer to sell the 100-400L for a few hundred over what I bought the Bigma for...
I decided on getting the 100-400 since I wanted the extra zoom. Already have the f/4 70-200 but it loses sharpness with a Teleconverter. I was considering upgrading to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS as an alternative since it is sharper than the 100-400 and with the TC it will stop down to a 5.6. But with the TC and at comparable focal lengths, the 100-400 is actually sharper. I figured I would be shooting wide open most of the time anyway. Hope that helps.
In what way did the 100-400mm lenses fail? Just curious because this is the first time I've heard anyone posting that high of failure rate.
Btw... just for clarification... canon 1.4x with 100-400 will still maintain AF on a 1 series body. I'm not sure if that includes the 5D.
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM or the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM
I bought the 70-200 and a 1.4 extender. (aka how to make a really good lens into a pretty good lens) :sexywink: Some days I wish I had the 100-400 instead. Other days, the 70-200 and the speed are just perfect. With the extender it's just fine.
Next on my list is the 300mm L f/4 prime. A real bargain lens and it takes me past the 200. I can throw the 1.4X on it and have 420. Hey look, everything from 70-420 covered now. :lol:
Don't be fooled by the field of view change, the 200 is still just a 200! It doesn't magically become a longer lens because you put it on a smaller sensor. You are just getting 62% of the full image, which makes it appear like the view you would get from a 320. You don't get more magnification.
You Don't Get More Zoom!
One lens test with the 300mm f/2.8 vs the 300mm f/4 showed that for film, there was a measurable difference in sharpness. For digital it would mean you needed to be shooting at 11mp or more to see that same difference. At 6-10mp you might find no noticeable difference.
Putting an extender on the lenses above slows down the autofocus. Which means the 100-400 by itself will focus faster than the 70-200 with an extender.
I bet I spent a month deciding between the two. Now that I did, I can answer your question. No matter which one you get, you will be happy!
If you want the lens speed, take the 2.8, if you want longer range, take the 100-400. What most of would like is the imaginary 100-400 L IS USM 2.8-3.5, for the same price... right? :lmao:
I have not experience with the 2x, but I guess there it was not Kenko to blame but thew fact that it was 2x ... I have the latest 1.4x from Kenko, and it appears to have more coner sharpness that the Canon euqivalent on full frame. Following tests, this does not really matter on crop sensors. If you use the Canon TC and are happy this would support those tests.
How often do you print that big though?
Oh, you don't even neet to print on paper, you can even see it when you "print" on screen and zoom in a bit. Looking at the actual pixel resolution will mislead you though. But you could realise it if you just look at one quarter of the image filling your screen in both cases.
This all becomes more visible and more extreme of course the more you crop. If you crop to just 10% of the visible area, it will be quite a large effect. In particular if in the uncropped version you are already at the borderline.
My largest images are generally around 19x13 (A3+ of my R2400) and I've never had issues with sharpness. My last was a 105mm shot at 1/20th sec and it looks amazing blown up.
OK, now I see the problem why you are having trouble believing me ;) :)
the inverse focal length as the shutter speed for telephoto of course is only rule of thumb for a specific print size looked at from a specific distance, assuming a typical amount of camera shake. I just guess you have a hand more steady than the average guy, and also IS will of course increase feasible shutter speeds. So my guess is that you are always way off any problematic case, so you cannot see the difference.
Of course, if you still do not believe in the principle of what I say (not talking of absolute numbers), then I could try to illustrate it with some sketch drawn to scale for both cases, small and large sensor and the two lenses. Of course that would take some time as I'd have to start a graphics programme and start drawing ;)
But I have the feeling you understand what I meant anyway ...
Alex, my comments weren't based on any experience with the particular lenses. They were based on a general knowledge of optics and the limitations of lens design that all lens designers face regardless of the name of their employer. We don't always have to have experience with the lens to have an idea how it should perform.
Also, regarding camera filed of view (that makes your composition) and regarding the effect of camera shake relative to the size of your image (this makes your image quality), a 200mm lens on 1.6 crop behaves just as a 300mm lens on 35mm film or full frame sensors: Camera shake of the same amplitude will cause the same motion blur in the final print (if print size is the same from the crop camera and the full frame).
I understand what you are trying to say but sorry I can't agree.
That's like saying to a 5D owner better shooting faster than 1/200th on your 200mm lens just in case you want to crop your image. that's all the crop cameras do is provide a crop from what you'd get from a FF sensor.
Very nice image by the way :)
Which TC do you use? Canon or Kenko or anything else?
They will all tell yah that 200mm is going to feel really short in that type of shooting. In fact, I keep hearing from them that 400mm is just beginning range they prefer. One guy uses the 100-400mm with a teleconverter and the rest prefer to rent telephoto lenses prior to an outing. IIRC, they all shoot with 20D's
So the answer is pretty simple:
Need the faster aperture... get the 70-200mm f2.8
Need the focal length... get the 100-400mm
I've shot a couple AutoX (car event) and couple polo matches which is the extent of my "sports" photography. I'll tell you that 200mm felt really short.... especially in the polo match where the playing field is huge.
As per Alex... its difficult to shoot with telephoto lenses handheld and IS is not a magic solution. If wildlife and sports is your game, your best friend is going to be a monopod or tripod. There is no way around it.
That's like saying to a 5D owner better shooting faster than 1/200th on your 200mm lens just in case you want to crop your image. that's all the crop cameras do is provide a crop from what you'd get from a FF sensor.
I agree my posting is only valid if you do not crop but stick to original image dimensions.
Usually the smaller sensor also provides a higher pixel density. But all this does not matter in this discussion anyway, since we talk about final prints.
Let us further assume that the pixel-resolution of both the 1.6 crop and the FF sensor are sufficient for say a 30cmx20cm print. With sufficient I mean that megapixels are not the limiting factor to the quality here.
If this is the same, then camera shake of a the same amplitude on the 300mm lens translates into a smaller motion blur amplitude on the sensor than with a 400mm lens.
However, since we combine the 300mm lens with the smaller sensor and the 400mm lens with the larger sensor, then you get the smaller absolute motion blur on the smaller sensor and the larger blur on the larger sensor.
If we now use the full image from the sensors in both cases to produce that 30x20 print, then motion blur in the final images will be of similar amplitude.
The magnification from the smaller sensor to 30x20 is larger than the magnification from the larger sensor to 30x20, that means also the motion blur is magnified more.
If you shoot with a full frame camera with a say 200mm lens, and you plan to crop as you suggest (which means more magnification for the final print), then you should indeed use shorter exposure times to reduce motion blur resulting from camera shake.
BTW, I do exclusively shoot full frame, and I crop a lot. So this is not just theory.
Get the 2.8 for the fast action type shots, and use a teleconverter if you need even more reach. But the "IS" is very nice.
Remember on anything but the 5d, your really looking at 100mm-300mm effective zoom with the crop factor.
After 300mm or so your going to need a tripod or monopod for good shots above that.
Another poster mentions coupling the lens with a 1.4 teleconverter. Even though the combination will slow the lens down a stop, it should still outperform the consumer lens. Good shooting.
Hey Fred
First the Canon EF100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS is NOT a consumer grade lens. It is one of Canon's pro "L" grade lenses that costs in excess of £1,000 at Warehouse Express. It's a lens favoured by many wildlife professionals and if you are shooting wildlife it's a great lens to buy.
Using long lenses with IS is so much easier than without so in this range I would not worry so much about that (see below).
The depth of field is harder to control at long focal lengths like this. Shooting wide open at close subjects can leave just a few mm of dof.
Here's another question: Of the two wide open, which is sharper? If the 100-400 is soft at 400, then that's sort of unusable focal length, right?
The 100-400 is not soft at 400. It's a quality lens that excels in most areas. Sure it's almost as big as a 70-200 f2.8L IS but if the aperture on the 100-400 was any bigger it would be a huge lens!
Comparing in the same range as the 70-200 f2.8L IS though, the 70-200 is a better and faster lens. Adding a 2x converter to the 70-200 though and the 100-400 wins throughout the range but that does not make the 70-200 a poor lens with the converter. IQ does drop a bit (hardly noticeable with the 1.4x) and AF is slower but it's still useable.
Can you put an extender on the 100-400?
I don't like tripods, so I may be better off with the 70-200.
You can use an extender on the 100-400 but you will lose autofocus and you'll need a lot of light to get decent shutter speeds. AF will also be much slower.
The point of having IS means that a tripod is not always required. You'll get a 2 stop advantage with IS which means shooting at 1/100th sec at 400mm should be easily achievable. If propped up, you might get even slower shutter speeds producing a sharp image. With the 70-200 (which gives a 3 stop advantage) I can easily shoot at 1/25th (at 200mm) and get sharp images (obviously of static subjects as IS does not stop motion) but I can even shoot at 1/15th 9again at 200mm) and get great results (I've shot 200mm down to 1/8th sec and got acceptable results (hold breath, have elbows tucked tight, don't move)!!
Both are quality lenses I've used the 100-400 but didn't like the push/pull zoom. I prefered the faster 70-200 which is a more versatile lens. I don't use the 2x because of the slower AF and drop in IQ so chose the 1.4x which works very well.
So I bought the 70-200 f2.8L IS because it's faster, (I needed the f2.8 aperture), sharper at comparable focal lengths (without converter) works great with the 1.4x converter and does a decent job with the 2x. I also have the 300mm f4L IS and with the 1.4x I get 420mm f5.6 so I thought I could live without the 100-400.
If you use a converter remember you'll need faster shutter speeds and therefore more light (bright days are best). You do not need to worry about the crop factor when looking at shutter speeds as some may have pointed out. A 400mm lens is still a 400mm lens whether on a crop camera or not - 1/400th is fine (or with 2 stops IS 1/100th will work very well)
Hope that helps.
Regards
Jim
First the Canon EF100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS is NOT a consumer grade lens. It is one of Canon's pro "L" grade lenses that costs in excess of £1,000 at Warehouse Express. It's a lens favoured by many wildlife professionals and if you are shooting wildlife it's a great lens to buy.
Jim
Thanks for the correction. Like I said, I'm not a Canon guy. Now I have the answer to my question. I would still go with the shorter faster lens, however, and put the 1.4 TC on it if necessary. A 3X fixed aperture zoom is theoretically going to outperform a 4X variable aperture zoom. My experience with 1.4X teleconverters is more positive than my experience with 4X zooms. But, like I said, I'm not a Canon guy so I'll bow out.
Can you put an extender on the 100-400?
I don't like tripods, so I may be better off with the 70-200.
Thanks for the comments. Keep 'em coming.
But even with Canon you are right here .. both lenses are supposedly very good pro lenses. But the 100-400 L is built for versatility, and the 70-200 L 2.8 is more built for image quality.
The 100-400 L is a bit soft at the 400mm end, at least the one I had in my hands. That is why I decided for the 300mm L 4. Also got a TC 1.4x now and will post images once I find some time to do so :)
From what I heard, the 70-200 L 2.8 is supposedly one of Canon's best telephoto zoom lenses. Of course primes are an alltogether different story.
Btw... just for clarification... canon 1.4x with 100-400 will still maintain AF on a 1 series body. I'm not sure if that includes the 5D.
1st one I had became very loose on zooming and Canon UK couldn't find a fault with it on the 3 times it was sent to them. The 2nd one went out on a cold day and a week later fungus had started, I'd used many other lenses on colder / wetter days and never had a problem. And that just put me off that lens. That said the current versions are different from the original, they have a much smoother focussing movement.
As for focussing at F8 it can be "made" to work on non series 1 bodies with a bit of tape, but I wouldn't recommend it just in case something goes wrong
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/890/f16_7.jpg
I'm still not overly convinced although I do see your theory.
How often do you print that big though? My largest images are generally around 19x13 (A3+ of my R2400) and I've never had issues with sharpness. My last was a 105mm shot at 1/20th sec and it looks amazing blown up.
I accept though that in some shots it would make a difference but not so sure I'd see it at my size of images.
Cheers
Jim
And as already has been said, on a crop camera think more of it as 200 x 1.6 which is 300ish.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |