Considering an upgrade instead of a new lens - 100-400mm vs 70-200mm f2.8 IS M2 +TC

[Overread]

Ok so my main interest is wildlife (though a quick look at my stream would suggest bugs and coins ) however I still lack what I feel is a workable and good quality longer lens.

I've been after a 300mm f2.8 IS L ever since I got to try one out, but with the price rises in the UK its moved out of easy reach for the time being and I have decided that I need a cheaper, but good quality longer lens for the now whilst I continue to save.
With that in mind I looked at the 300mm f4 IS L, 400mm f5.6 L, 100-400mm L and the new sigma 50-500mm OS - and after carefull thinking and also talking to existing owners of long (expensive) telephoto lenses I decided that the best long term choice for me was the 100-400mm L - since the zoom whilst of a lower image quality is still very good (if one gets a good copy) and can be a good other lens for when the heavier and larger 300mm f2.8 (and similar) is not an option.

However I've been looking at the new 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 over on The Digital Picture Review site and had a look at the following tests:

First comparing the original (the lens I currently own) to the new - both wide open at the 400mm mark (with 2*TC)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

then comparing the new zoom to the 100-400mm - again at the wide open setting
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results
Now the 100-400mm clearly beats the original 70-200mm, but the new M2 is a little bit more hazy. The 100-400mm is still leading the way, but I do wonder if with the overall improvement it might not be an idea to sell my 70-200mm f2.8 IS L and upgrade to the new versio (the cost of upgrading not being much different to getting the 100-400mm when done with added sale money from my 70-200mm).

So simply put am I mad to consider this and am I just chasing after the latest release in a range that I already have well covered - or is it a valid move to make?

ps I use a 400D camera body for my shooting and chances are this won't be changing to anything else for quite some time (even though I'd really like a 7D there are more lenses I want first)
__________________

 

[quackal]

I was also looking at the 100-400mm f/4.5L vs. the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and looked for feedback on a number of forums.
I shoot primarily sports however and needed the reach that the 100-400mm offered (I have the 70-250mm consumer lens).

From the feedback I got, the 70-200 IS USM sounds like one of Canon's best lenses and the 100-400 is great but needs alot of light. With that said, I bought the 100-400mm f/4.5 and down the road will get the 70-200mm f/2.8 for indoor and when there is insufficient light outside.

I shoot with a Canon XSi.

 

[rufus5150]

The one thing that you may consider, which that test doesn't quite indicate, is that the 2x TC tends to induce some CA and exacerbate any that's on the lens already. This will be especially important to you as you're likely shooting in situations where you'll end up with some seriously contrasty bits of sky and whatnot while shooting wildlife which is sorta the breeding ground for CA to begin with.

Actually on looking at the results again, you can see the introduction of a bit of lateral CA in the test you link. The 100-400mm doesn't show that.

I imagine, though, with either lens and away from the pixel-peeping range, they're both going to be quite suitable. The 100-400 will be 2/3rds of a stop faster on the short end, though.

​

 

[Hardrock]

I think if you are happy with your original 70-200 images and sharpness you would be happier with a new lens in a different focal range. I think gator-bill75 had a real world 200mm lens test and for me it wasnt that huge of a difference. Most people wouldn't know or be able to see the difference. Obvioulsy photo nuts can tell but once printed I would bet its hard to notice. I to sit here and think if I should sell my 70-200 for the new one but it would still cost me at least $1200 dollars. So I think you should use the money and apply it to a new lens you dont already have.

 

[gsgary]

You know my thoughts on the 100-400, Slow,Slow focus, push pull zoom is horrible I think you have the 1.4X ? so it's a no brainer for me 300mmF4 then you have 420mm plus you can shoot at F4 300mm, for wildlife you be at 400mm most of the time

 

[Hardrock]

You know my thoughts on the 100-400, Slow,Slow focus, push pull zoom is horrible I think you have the 1.4X ? so it's a no brainer for me 300mmF4 then you have 420mm plus you can shoot at F4 300mm, for wildlife you be at 400mm most of the time

I agree totally and with a crop body you really have 672mm.

 

[table1349]

The EF 2X TCII really isn't designed to be put on anything less than 300mm. I have yet to find anyone that likes it on a 70-200 including me. The 1.4 however gives nice results. I save my 2X for my 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 and get acceptable results.

 

[Overread]

Hehe so the general view is that I am indeed quite mad - good

Seriously though I've noticed a few people over on POTN who have 100-400mm lenses and the new 70-200mm who have said that they will post up some tests/experiences so I'll have a gander at them as well to see how things perform.

I don't want to end up downgrading the quality too far, but on the other hand if its not too bad it could be a decent move in that I know the lens will certianly see heavy active use both before and after the arrival of the superlenses.

 

[icassell]

I feel for you. I'm doomed now. I participated in a workshop this morning with Jennifer Wu ( Majestic Peak Images?fine art nature photography by Jennifer Wu ) . The Canon rep was there with multiple things to play with. After shooting mostly with my own equipment, I tried the 70-200 MK II. Although I avoided them most of the morning (for fear of serious glass envy), I broke down and shot a few heron shots with the 1D Mk IV, the 500/4, and the 1.4X TC ( http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll249/icassell/CI7E3219-Edit.jpg ). Now there is no way I will ever be happy with anything shorter than a 400 and I'm trying to find a truck that has the 500 falling off the back.

On a different tack, I also tried the new 17mm TS ... what a beautiful piece of glass!

 

[Overread]

1 neat shot
2 you FOOL! You should have stuck to something shorter - now you are truly doomed indeed

ps if you find that truck please do keep an eye out for one with a spare 300mm f2.8 IS L falling off it as well.

and out of interest how did the workshop go - besides testing fancy shiny gear - and how was the Me 70-200mm?

 

[icassell]

1 neat shot
2 you FOOL! You should have stuck to something shorter - now you are truly doomed indeed

ps if you find that truck please do keep an eye out for one with a spare 300mm f2.8 IS L falling off it as well.

and out of interest how did the workshop go - besides testing fancy shiny gear - and how was the Me 70-200mm?

The workshop was outstanding. She's a nice lady, an excellent nature photographer, and a superb teacher. If you ever have the chance to participate in one, go! She's one of Canon's 67 odd "Explorers of Light".

I liked the 70-200, but didn't feel it gave me incredible advantages over my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8.

He had the 300/2.8 for her lecture last night, but didn't bring it out today. It's not as big as I imagined it.

You're right, I was a fool. He offered to let me try the 500 several times and I turned him down. But then he set it up on the Wimberly and I caved. Big mistake!

 

[table1349]

I feel for you. I'm doomed now. I participated in a workshop this morning with Jennifer Wu ( Majestic Peak Images?fine art nature photography by Jennifer Wu ) . The Canon rep was there with multiple things to play with. After shooting mostly with my own equipment, I tried the 70-200 MK II. Although I avoided them most of the morning (for fear of serious glass envy), I broke down and shot a few heron shots with the 1D Mk IV, the 500/4, and the 1.4X TC ( http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll249/icassell/CI7E3219-Edit.jpg ). Now there is no way I will ever be happy with anything shorter than a 400 and I'm trying to find a truck that has the 500 falling off the back.

On a different tack, I also tried the new 17mm TS ... what a beautiful piece of glass!

YOU SUCK!!!! LIKE BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!

I am so waiting for the 1D MkIV to show up with big brown. D@#* I hate weekends.

 

[icassell]

I feel for you. I'm doomed now. I participated in a workshop this morning with Jennifer Wu ( Majestic Peak Images?fine art nature photography by Jennifer Wu ) . The Canon rep was there with multiple things to play with. After shooting mostly with my own equipment, I tried the 70-200 MK II. Although I avoided them most of the morning (for fear of serious glass envy), I broke down and shot a few heron shots with the 1D Mk IV, the 500/4, and the 1.4X TC ( http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll249/icassell/CI7E3219-Edit.jpg ). Now there is no way I will ever be happy with anything shorter than a 400 and I'm trying to find a truck that has the 500 falling off the back.

On a different tack, I also tried the new 17mm TS ... what a beautiful piece of glass!

YOU SUCK!!!! LIKE BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!

I am so waiting for the 1D MkIV to show up with big brown. D@#* I hate weekends.

:lmao:

Frankly, although I liked the 1D, I'm very happy with my 7D and don't really lust after the 1D body. On the other hand, that lens is to die for.

 

[gsgary]

1 neat shot
2 you FOOL! You should have stuck to something shorter - now you are truly doomed indeed

ps if you find that truck please do keep an eye out for one with a spare 300mm f2.8 IS L falling off it as well.

and out of interest how did the workshop go - besides testing fancy shiny gear - and how was the Me 70-200mm?

Have a look here, i shop here

Canon Auto Focus - Aperture Photographic Tel. 020 7242 8681

 

[FrankLamont]

Check the MTF charts.

I can't exactly remember, but I think both were above .8.