70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II

sudhirss77 · Nov 10, 2015

I have Canon 6D with 24-105mm and 50mm f/1.8 II right now and I mostly use it to take family and landscape photos. I am really happy with 24-105mm and it will be my goto lens. last time when I was in Zoo, I was handicapped by lack of zoom lense and I am planning to add it to my collection.My budget is 2K and I want to get sharpest lens with best image quality. I am leaning towards 100-400 IS II as it was released recently and obviously has newer technology. I can also consider Sigma and Tamron lenses if they have same image quality as Canon lenses. Any input is appreciated.

runnah · Nov 10, 2015

70-200 all day long. Plus if you ever need a bit more reach you add a teleconverter and get the same reach and almost the same quality as the 100-400.

EIngerson · Nov 10, 2015

70-200 is a must have tool in your kit. Honestly, I am not impressed with the 100-400. It's an okay lens, but useless in low light. Maybe it's my own bias, but I have never been impressed with that lens.

Now I'll go against the grain. I've had the 70-200 IS version 1 and 2 and I am now a die hard F4 non IS fan. I find it noticeably sharper than the others. I even use it for night football and love it. At over $1000 savings you can not beat it

runnah · Nov 10, 2015

EIngerson said:
70-200 is a must have tool in your kit. Honestly, I am not impressed with the 100-400. It's an okay lens, but useless in low light. Maybe it's my own bias, but I have never been impressed with that lens.

Now I'll go against the grain. I've had the 70-200 IS version 1 and 2 and I am now a die hard F4 non IS fan. I find it noticeably sharper than the others. I even use it for night football and love it. At over $1000 savings you can not beat it

Funny because I have the f/4 no IS version and I was considering trading up to the more expensive option. Renting the 2.8 IS version for this weekend so I will have to do some head to head comparisons.

EIngerson · Nov 10, 2015

runnah said:
EIngerson said:

70-200 is a must have tool in your kit. Honestly, I am not impressed with the 100-400. It's an okay lens, but useless in low light. Maybe it's my own bias, but I have never been impressed with that lens.

Now I'll go against the grain. I've had the 70-200 IS version 1 and 2 and I am now a die hard F4 non IS fan. I find it noticeably sharper than the others. I even use it for night football and love it. At over $1000 savings you can not beat it

Click to expand...

Funny because I have the f/4 no IS version and I was considering trading up to the more expensive option. Renting the 2.8 IS version for this weekend so I will have to do some head to head comparisons.

I admit they have their purpose, but I'm REALLY glad I didn't give up my F4

DB_Cro · Nov 11, 2015

70-200 is maybe the best zoom lens on the market right now, regardless of brand or range.
Even if you need/want the 100-400, get the 70-200 first.

There's nothing as sharp.

JacaRanda · Nov 11, 2015

If you are not doing much wildlife shooting or birding, then 70-200. However, the version two of the 100-400 (version II) is very nice.

sabbath999 · Nov 11, 2015

70-200. Easy choice.

DarkShadow · Nov 11, 2015

Yep 70-200 and you can alway slap a TC on it for extra reach.

JacaRanda · Nov 11, 2015

Living Wilderness: Hands on with the Canon 100-400 IS Mark II
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens Review
Canon 100-400mm L IS II Review

Derrel · Nov 11, 2015

The last minute and 15 seconds of the digitalrev review video pretty much sums things up.

JacaRanda · Nov 11, 2015

Derrel said:
The last minute and 15 seconds of the digitalrev review video pretty much sums things up.

Yup, back to need or need most.

TCampbell · Nov 11, 2015

There are only two kinds of people in the world... those who own the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II... and those who want one.

I have the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM original (not the "II") and it is an EXCEPTIONAL lens. The II is a tiny bit better (but the original is so good I was surprised they came out with the II). Basically it's the best lens in that category from any vendor and it's really no contest.

I was looking at the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II myself. I just don't shoot that much stuff that requires 400mm and think this lens wouldn't get pulled out of the bag very often. I suppose if you need 400mm often, then it might be worth considering. But I use the 70-200mm lens all the time (it's actually the lens that lives on my camera body.) It would be difficult for me to justify the 100-400mm based on a trip to the zoo (I think I'd need the annual membership to the zoo and would need to be visiting often.) But I could justify a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a trip to just about anywhere.

KenC · Nov 12, 2015

Don't overlook the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS as a possibility. It's a great lens and sometimes having a little extra reach without resorting to a teleconverter is nice (at least I find that to be the case). I normally wouldn't suggest this to someone interested in a 2.8 lens, but you are considering the 100-400, which is also a f4-5.6.