Which lens to buy? [70-200/2.8 vs. 100-400/4.5-5.6]

[jamz66]

Looking for a lens for my 40D. (I have the 28-135 IS)  I take lots of baseball photos where I have access to the field, and some wildlife photos in Canada (bear, moose).  I like zooms for the versatility, so I was thinking about the Canon 100-400L.  Was also thinking about the 70-200 2.8 IS as I would like to take basketball photos of my son also.  I could then possibly add a 1.4x converter if needed for baseball.  Will the 70-200 2.8 IS work indoors?   Is one lens out of the question?

[Bob Atkins]

You have two (or three!) conflicting needs. You want a zoom for versatility, a long lens for wildlife and a fast lens for indoors. Unfortunately you can't really have all three in one lens, so you have to compromise.

The 100-400 is better for wildlife, but maybe a bit slow for freezing action indoors. The 70-200/2.8 is faster and so will allow you to use faster shutter speeds in low light to freeze action, but it's not as long as the 100-400, and although you can add a 1.4x or 2x TC, you'll lose some sharpness by doing so. You're also limited to 400mm. With the 100-400 you can go to 560mm with a 1.4x and even 800mm with a 2x, though you'll need to use manual focus abd at 80mm f11 the lens may be slow and tricky to focus.

There is a Sigma 12-300/2.8 APO lens which has more range than the 70-200 and more speed than the 100-400, but it's big, heavy and expensive. It also doesn't have stabilization. There's also a Sigma 300-800/5.6 APO , but it's even more unreasonably large, heavy and expensive!

So you have to decide which is the most important factor. Telephoto length, speed or sharpness. If you want length and sharpness at 400mm, it's the 100-400IS. If you want speed, it's the 70-200/2.8.

I've reviewed both lenses here on BobAtkins.com:

EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS USM Review
EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM Review

In the end it has to be a personal decision. They are both excellent lenses. It depends on where you want to make your compromises!

[jamz66]

Thanks for the info!  I've been struggling with those same conflicts.  Am I spending too much $.  What about the 70-300 4-5.6 IS and a seperate lens for indoor basketball?  I know its not as long as the 100-400L and not as sharp, but is there that big of a difference in quality? 

[Bob Atkins]

Personally I really like the 70-300IS and I have one myself. On a 40D it's a great lens with a lot of reach. It's also sharp, even at 300mm and f5.6, though the edges do start to soften a bit at that focal length when compared to the 100-400IS. However it's a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper and up 200mm it's pretty much just as sharp (on a 40D). Even at 300mm it can almost match the 100-400 in the center of the frame.

I don't know what focal length you need for indoor basketball work. the 85/1.8, 100/2 and (especially) the 135/2L are very good, fast lenses if you can live without a zoom. If you have to buy the 70-200/2.8 though, you could just get the 1.4x TC rather than the 70-300IS and you'd have just about the same range covered.

In the end, there's no one lens that will do everything, which is what keeps the camera and lens makers in business.

[jamz66]

Last time I'll bother you with this thread.  Would you buy the 70-300IS or the 70-200 f4L with a 1.4x converter?  Once again for baseball and all around outdoor use.  THANKS again for all the info and lens reviews!

[Bob Atkins]

I would (and did) buy the 70-300IS. It has IS which is a big plus for a telephoto which you intend to handhold. It's also smaller and, being black, a bit less conspicuous then the 70-200/4L.

I think the 70-200/4L is probably a better lens (better built, real ring USM motor), but I think the 70-300IS is more useful (at least for me)