Canon 20-200 or the 100-400mm

[wallstreet]

Hi. I'm trying to decide which is the best move for me, to buy the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS with a teleconvertor or buy the 100-400mm IS. I like taking wildlife shots, (birds, wild animals etc) but I also take some portraits. I have canon's 18-200mm IS plus the kit 18-55. Where is my money best spent? Thanks for your help. Kevin.

[matt wilson]

The 100 400 is one I have and love but it is slow .Light levels need to be good to get birds in flight for example.

I have seen this question posed in so many places and the answers are usually an equal split .I would advise you to try both lenses and then see which you prefer .The 100 400 is also very heavy but you get used to it.

Quality wise I now find I use my 18 200 very little the L lenses really are a huge step up.

You may find the same and could even think of a part exchange with the 18 200.

[Cutter]

Just a little input from me, matt helped me when I was deciding between the 70-200L and the 100- 400 L.
I chose the 100- 400L and on a recent Photoshoot at a rugby match a photographer was there and carrying the 70-200L and I was thinking did i make the right choice because sometimes you need that bit extra light. Anyway the photographer ask me what lense I had, so i told her, to which she replied I wished I had got that one to get right into the action. And I said I was thinking I should I have got her lense.

Anyway the moral of the story as we both found out, is that we always want what we havn't got. But both lenses are highly reccomended.

[ap4a]

Prioritise your requirements so that you're clear whether wildlife or portraits is most important. Once you know that you can decide. The 70-200 f/2.8 will be better for portraits, but it's more expensive and you could get a fast 50mm lens for portraits with the saving. In good light the 100-400 will be better than the 70-200 +TC as it'll have marginally better image quality and use won't involve switching between using a TC and not. For short range wildlife work, without the TC, the 70-200 would be better as it has better IQ and is a couple of stops faster.

[wallstreet]

I appreciate everyones advice. Thanks a lot. Like most people I don't have a lot of money and want to make the right choice the first time.

[anglefire]

If you are going to want to use the 400mm end a lot, then I would go for the 100-400mm, as both are f5.6 at that end.

However, that said, I would probably go for the 70-200 f2.8 IS and x2 TC as I would prefer the faster lens for a lot of what I do, and live with the AF the rest. However, having used this combination, the AF is slow. So if you are looking for BIF you may not be satisfied.

I'm also not keen on push/pull lenses - but thats just me.

[hssutton]

Been there and now rely solely on the 100-400 L. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a superb lens, but degrades somewhat whith the 2 x extended attached.

Have a read here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml

Harry

[anglefire]

If you don't use more than 200mm very often and don't need fast AF, then I would still go for the 70-200 and TC.

As for image quality with the TC, then yes it is compromised (certainly it is compared to my 400mm f/5.6, but I didn't find it bad. AF was its biggest issue.

But it does need a lot of light to work well, but then so does the 100-400.

An example of the 70-200 with 2xTC is:



ISO 400, 1/1000", f/5.6, FL 385mm