Thinking about a lens swap

[mirrodie]

So I have the 100-400 but feel that images past 300 mm are a bit soft and so I am considering selling it and getting the 70-200.

Which 70-200 are you guys using and whats your impressions with it?

[eric8669]

This is what I have.

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens for Canon EOS

[Matt Molnar]

Problem is what will you do when you need 300-400 range?

[moose135]

I have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) - it's an outstanding lens, very good image quality, but like Matt said, there are times, especially around this area, that I want the longer reach, and use the 100-400. That's no slouch on quality either.

[heeshung]

I use the 70-200 f/4 IS. It's sharp at all focal lengths, but sometimes, especially for spotting, 200mm might not be enough. The IS seems to help less than they advertise it to, but low light is still great on the f/4, which I didn't expect. I'm going to try finding some shots.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3593/3404760234_72a5163df6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heeshung/3404760234/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/3404042049_7ccfb175d2_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heeshung/3404042049/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3462/3403952109_04eec71d7b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heeshung/3403952109/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3650/3345861626_cfcb68b8ae_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heeshung/3345861626/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3317/3345863446_b8e73d8fae_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heeshung/3345863446/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3298/3345139911_c35ef555c2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heeshung/3345139911/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3578/3345023679_d5511f5412_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heeshung/3345023679/)

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/UnitedVirtualResources/IMG_2424.jpg

Going to upload some low light shots.

[threeholerglory]

if you need a low light fast lens, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is my first choice. I have 2. Just kidding...but I do have a copy and it is absolutely superb. It does not have the same reach, however as the 100-400 (for obvious reasons), even with a 1.4X extender. If you're up for a prime, the 300 f/4 is absolutely outstanding. It has great range, a fast enough aperature to shoot in less than ideal conditions without jacking the ISO too much, and has an incredible IS system, probably quite comparable to your 100-400. It also maintains the same tack-sharp qualities as any prime. Oh, and it's VERY lightweight. In addition, the 300 takes a 1.4X TC very nicely which gives you a 420mm f/5.6 IS....so for about 1500$ between the lens and the TC you get not one, but TWO incredible primes, both with IS. Albeit, the TC will slow you down one full stop, and it will hunt a little in AF mode, there is no perceivable loss of quality.

So concludes my rambling. For now.

[T-Bird76]

Keep the lens. No reason to sell it.

[Matt Molnar]

On a related note, has anyone used the Canon 400mm f/5.6L? Any sharper than the 100-400 at long range?

[Jetinder]

With my first camera (Canon AE1P) I had a 80-300mm, that was ok but i needed a x2 teleconverter to get the best reach.

When i got the EOS 3 i got a 80-400mm and that lens has been brilliant, i would not be with out it and rarely need to use a teleconverter.

With out sounding thick if your lens is a bit soft at anything above 300mm, why not just zoom up to 200mm and then stop as the lens is bound to be sharper at that end.

Depending on shutter speed and day light use f14 or f16 to get better depth of field and sharper images.