C100: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM vs. Canon f/2.8 IS II USM 70-200 2.8 for vid

My experience with extenders is limited to shooting a forty five minute documentary for the TV Series Cosmos, being at the Grand Canyon and Meteor crater and being very far from talent, a couple hundred yards in some cases. I used the 70-200 2.8 II IS and the 2X extender. I shot a lot that week with just the 70-200 2.8 and fell in love with that lens. But with the extender, it fell apart, soft, lots of CA, no thanks. Kind of soured me on them.
 
So did you get the 100-400? I'm thinking about it as well ... and curious to hear your experiences with it.
 
I know I'm late to this. Partly for the OP, but also FYI for others looking a long lenses:

I shoot wildlife, mostly stills. I had the Canon 100-400 II on pre-order last December, but it didn't arrive before I headed down to Florida for the winter. Iinstead of the 100-400 II, I used a Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport, which is an incredibly beautiful lens, but very heavy.

Since the Canon 100-400 II started to ship last spring, all of the wildlife shooters have raved about the lens. It appears to be fantastic, much better than the previous 100-400. I was planning on buying one this November for this winter in Florida, but since the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary has come out, a lot of folks are very impressed with the results of that lens and have changed their minds. The 150-600 retails for $1,067 I think, although it is occasionally available for $900 new on a special deal.

Compared to the $2,200 cost of the 100-400 II, that price is pretty attractive. I am always "reach limited" for wildlife work, so the comparison for me is between the Canon 100-400 II with the Canon 1.4x III extender and the 150-600. With the 1.4x on the Canon lens, the results are pretty comparable at the long end. The Sigma can also take a 1.4x extender for additional reach.

There are some very detailed tests results and a few 50+ page threads in the Canon Forum at Fred Miranda discussing both lenses if you are interested. One wildlife shooter in Alaska was able to compare the lenses side-by-side with the Canon 300 2.8 II and longer super tele's with pictures of Eagles in the nest. There are some other great sample images by very talented photos.

I shoot with the Canon 70-200 2.8 II all of the time, it is one of the best lenses I have ever used. The Canon 100-400 II appears to be in the same class, as is the Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS Sport. The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is probably a tier behind, although there is the heavier, better, weather sealed Sigma 150-600 Sport that runs about $2,000 that is a better lens than the Contemporary.


Also, FWIW on teleconverters/ extenders: In general, it seems that the 1.4x extenders are usually acceptable to excellent, depending on the lens and extender combination. The 2x extenders can be borderline. Apparently the Canon 2x III is much better than the 2x II, so pay the extra to get the newer extender if you go with a 2x.

I currently plan to buy the Sigma 150-600 in November for use in Florida this winter. I'll try it out with video too, either on my Canon 7DII or by adapter on a Panasonic body in 4K.

I have just started to play with 4K wildlife video on my Panasonic FZ1000. That has a 400 mm+ effective focal length. That is one more option when you need "reach", for less than the cost of most long lenses. So far I am just expecting more casual wildlife use/ results out of it. We will see.
 
Hi Unadog:

I have not yet purchased the lens, I will be renting it to shoot an airshow in September. As far as Sigma, regardless of the performance, I have always felt that third party lenses for Nikon or Canon are somewhat of a terrible investment. If you purchase a Nikon or Canon lens, they pretty much will hold their value for decades if you need to resell because your needs change. I bought the Nikon 24-70 2.8 new a few years ago. Shot with it for a year, sold it for $100.00 more than I paid for it. If that had been a Sigma or Tamron lens, I would have been doing well to get back half of what I paid for it new. The long lenses, the high quality Canon and Nikons seem to be money in the bank. I have one third party lens, the old Tokina 12-24 F4 that is an excellent lens, well built, razor sharp, makes pretty images and I don't regret buying it. But if I were to sell it, it would fetch much less than a comparable Canon or Nikon lens. So for a long lens, I would probably spend the money on the more expensive Canon as it is a sound investment that may actually appreciate eventually.
 
Last edited:
Thanks puredrifting, I have always felt much the same way.

I especially love the really good glass, like the Canon 100-400 II. I have the Canon 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II, the Nikon 70-200 VR II, etc.

I have been able to find some great deals on new or used Sigma lenses that made jumping in a lot easier. For example, I have the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS that I use on my Nikon D5300. It is the sharpest standard zoom on the Nikon APS-C sensors, and you can get it as a direct import from Japan for $320 on eBay, with a 1 year international warranty. Compared to $1,500+ for the Nikon 17-55 2.8 without stabilization it is a steal. And it shouldn't cost more than $100 to own it for a year.

I have been very happy with the newer Sigma lenses that I have tried. Some are pretty unique too, like the Sigma 120-300 2.8, or the 150-600.

But if you can afford the best Canon or Nikon glass and can get it at a bit of a discount it is usually the best route. I just bought the Nikon 70-200 VR II "new", with waranty as an open box about 2 months ago for a good price. It is a beautiful lens and I paid about what it was going for used.

Please let us know how you make out with the Canon 100-400 II when you get it.

Cheers!

Michael
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top