70-200L IS or 100-400 for aircraft ph? help pls!

[Ad@mS]

Please help me to decide between theese lenses:

1. Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM IS (and 1.4x II Extender) - 1650+280 USD

or

2. Canon EF 100-400 F4.5-5.6 L USM IS - 1390 USD

I would like to use it with a 10D (1.6 FOV), for aviation photography.

The 70-200 IS is very attractive for me, because it is fast and it may perform good in low light at f2.8 at 200mm, and with the 1.4x Extender it gives 280mm at f4. But the question: is the 200 or 280mm (x1.6) enough for aircraft photography? Is the 2.8 worth the extra money?

The 100-400 IS is very simpatic too. I think I would be more flexible with this lens, the 400 mm length is surely enough. Does it perform good between 280 and 400 mm? Is it as fast as 70-200IS? How does it work at lower light conditions?

Which one would yo buy if you were me?

Thanks,

Adam

[Spotter]

I would buy them both

but for me the 70-200 was too expensive, and didn't give enough room to maneuvre so to say.

I tried the 100-400 from Dan Valentine, and it was 'ok' but again I missed the mm's on the wide angle end, and disliked the Push-Pull

So I opted for the Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 EX HSM RF APO, great zoomrange (80-800 on your cam and also on mine (300D)), a bit less lightstrong, but it is remarkable sharp (read the reviews) and it is also the cheapest.

[Airbus_A320]

I just ordered my 300D and i'm getting the 70-200 F/4.0L (should be here in a few days). I'll post here about how that one is once i get it. Here are some reviews to look at....

Here are some reviews:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...rt=7&thecat=27 - 70-200 F/2.8L IS

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...rt=7&thecat=27 70-200 F/4.0L

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...rt=7&thecat=27 - 100-400 L

[Darren Howie]

Hi Adam
Always a hot topic the 70-200 vs 100-400L debate.
Simple answere really.
Are you close enough to not need greater than around 280mm equiv?
If so go for the 70-200 plus 1.4.
If you need greater than 280mm equiv go for the 100-400L.
CKW will give you a beter run down but from his info the 100-400 is sharper at greater than 280mm equiv than the 70-200 when fitted with the 1.4.
At less than 200mm the 70-200 is a kick ass lens and worth every cent.
Just depends on how much length you really need.
HTH
Darren

[BA747-436]

Iv'e used both and found the 100-400 to be a better a better quality lens, with a slightley more noticable degree of sharpness noticed when post processing. But the argument is true that if you feel that 400+mm (withought loosing some quality) wouldnt benifit you at your local airport then dont bother, get the 70-200 for more variation around the low end of the mm spectrum.

[Spotter]

dan, have you tried the Sigma yet? (50-500)

[BA747-436]

Not yet, found the 70-200 to be pretty under par compared with my current 100-400 though so i havnt really tried any more sigma lenses.

[Chris_SE]

If I could afford the switch to Canon right now, I would get

70-200 IS
Converter
100-400
In that order, and then sell the converter. The 70-200 produces some of the sharpest images Ive seen.

[ckw]

Dan - surprised at your findings - are we talking the current 70-200f2.8 LIS?

For a while I had both the 70-200 and 100-400 (plus a 300mm) decided one had to go to finance a 2nd DSLR. A serious amount of controlled testing gave me the following results.

The 300mm is the sharpest of the 3, followed by the 70-200 then the 100-400. Mind you, there is not a lot in it, and all 2 are fairly descrived as sharp lenses. With convertors, it gets a little more interesting:

70-200 +1.4 is still slightly sharper than the 100-400 at 280mm
300 +1.4 is noticeably sharper than the 100-400 at 400mm

70-200 +2x is not quite as sharp as the 100-400 at any focal length (but still very good results)

My conclusion was that for the long end, my best lens was my 300 with convertors, for shorter range, the 70-200. The 100-400 is very flexible, but didn't offer me any advantage over my other lenses. (But remember, we're talking quite small differences).

Another consideration is that the 70-200 has a better zoom mechanism and uses the latest generation IS - a full stop better than the 100-400mm.

In short, up to 280mm, the 70-200 is the best bet. How important is that extra reach? What plans do you have for future purchases - in my case, poor long term planning resulted in my ending up with a significant focal length redundancy.

Cheers,

Colin

[fireguy274]

100-400 vrs 70-200

I have to go with Colin here. I would guess you got a bad 70-200 or an unusually good 100-400. I have both. My 70-200 IS USM 2.8 is noticably better in quality than the 100-400. I would go with the 70-200 and a converter if I were doing it all over agin...Artie

[Ad@mS]

Thanks!

Thanks for your advices. I think I'll go for the 70-200f2.8IS with converters.

Thanks,

Adam

[Leftseat86]

What I find hilarious Colin, is that...when comparing all THREE of those lenses to their Sigma/Tamaron counterparts...well...you can't compare!!

For the past three months I have been using a Sigma 28-300 EX, and while it has done me good on several occasions, I would say at least 50% of the shots are very soft or even downright out of focus. I have used a number of lenses recently after the Sigma broke (thanks to everyone who let me use theirs ) and after trying the 100-400L...my, almost evry shot is pin sharp. I have also tried a 70-200 f/4 L, which was nice, although far too limited for LAX, a Sigma 170-500 (soft @ 500 but nice at 200-350 range) and a Canon 75-300 USM III (which I just bought), sharp from 75 on out to around 280 but a little soft at 300, although no where near as soft as the Sigma.

I have yet to try a 70-200 f/2.8 L with converters, would like to see how it works though. 100-400 + a 1.4 virtually kills the AF on it so it's rather pointless. But overall, I think the 100-400 is one of the lenses I have had the most fun using, if not for the quick AF, then for the great range it offers.

I always like reading your input Colin, because you seem to have a setup with the 300mm prime that few others use.

-Clovis