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

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

  • 70-200mm f/2.8 ISL II

  • 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II

  • Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3

  • Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3


Results are only viewable after voting.

sudhirss77

TPF Noob!
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.

I admit they have their purpose, but I'm REALLY glad I didn't give up my F4
 
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.
 
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.
 
70-200. Easy choice.
 
Yep 70-200 and you can alway slap a TC on it for extra reach.
 
The last minute and 15 seconds of the digitalrev review video pretty much sums things up.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top