View Single Post
  #9  
Old 06-04-11, 09:26
postcardcv's Avatar
postcardcv postcardcv is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Age: 48
Posts: 1,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Takahashi View Post
I don't want to hijack your thread Tangata, but I want to ask Harry if he considers the 100-400 more versatile than the 70-200, and is the f-drop any kind of a limitation, beyond the obvious? I've been juggling the possibility of these two lenses for months now, and still can't decide. I know that when my savings creep towards that £1000 mark, the 100-400 might just beat the 70-200, simply by being cheaper! ...unless i can be persuaded otherwise? It would be used primarily for birding, motor racing events, and some general use.
As has been said by others it really is a matter of what you plan on shooting with it. I love my 70-200 f2.8 IS and would only part with it for the mkII, the lens is sharp wide open, with fast and acurate focusing and delivers stunning images. It is my go to lens for most portrait work and on a full frame camera is my workhorse lens for weddings. However when you start adding tc's to give more reach it starts to lose it's edge a little. In my experience the 100-400 is better than the 70-200 with a 2x tc (though apparently the 70-200 mkII with a 2x is as good as the 100-400). If you need the focal length then go for the 100-400, if you want an amazing portrait lens then go for the 70-200.
Reply With Quote