#1  
Old 19-03-2012, 08:21 PM
skysurfer's Avatar
skysurfer
Dark sky rules !

skysurfer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: 52N 6E (EU)
Posts: 1,021
Canon 70-200 2.8L or 100-400 5.6L ?

For my newly purchased 7d I want to buy a telephoto lens preferable a rather bright one.
The 70-200 is brighter but the 100-400 has the same aperture at 400mm (70mm). The latter has a larger zoom range and can even be used as a small 70mm telesope (fit a 1.25" diagonal on the rear end to allow an eyepiece).
I want to use the lens for both astrophotography and 'regular' photography for both moving and still objects.

What are your ideas ?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 19-03-2012, 09:54 PM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 8,979
Difficult call, the 70-200 is available in F4 or F2.8 constant aperture, that's a fair bit faster than the 100-400. If your intention is to do some birding forget the 70-200 it really doesn't have enough reach. If you're prepared to compromise a little and use a prime, the 400mm F5.6 is IMO a better lens and quite a bit cheaper than the 100-400.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 19-03-2012, 10:38 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
I had the 70-200 f/4 L on my 7D. It was fantastic at the shorter end, but the long end didn't reach far enough for most of my uses. I debated for a long time about replacing it.

I made up a spreadsheet comparing the parameters of all the tele lenses that could fit the bill, and it came down to either the 100-400 or the 70-300 L. The 70-300 won on every count except the max reach.

I ended up going for the 70-300 L. So far I haven't really used it in anger, but I'm about to head off to South America for a month.

I'd suggest you try to get hold of a couple of lenses and try them on your 7D. Either of the lenses you are considering, or the 70-300 L, are quite heavy when combined with the 7D. They are much heavier than the 70-200 f/4 L IS that I had before.

The 100-400 is no slouch (though I've never used one myself), but the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, and the 70-300 L IS are sharper, have better IS, have better AF, and are water resistant. These are all considerations that help compensate for that missing reach.

I figured that for my use, 70-300 was a very good focal range. The 400 f/5.6 prime is supposedly up for replacement soon, and it's replacement will have IS as well as more modern AF. When that one comes out it will definitely be on my wanted list for when I need the extra length without the versatility of a zoom.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 21-03-2012, 05:24 AM
skysurfer's Avatar
skysurfer
Dark sky rules !

skysurfer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: 52N 6E (EU)
Posts: 1,021
Isn't the 70-300 rather dim (f/5.6) on the long end ?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 21-03-2012, 07:27 AM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by skysurfer View Post
Isn't the 70-300 rather dim (f/5.6) on the long end ?
Same as the 100-400.

Other than depth of field, with modern camera's like the 7D which are a lot more light sensitive, slower lenses are not the issue they used to be.
Of course faster would be nicer, but we're not spending 7k plus here.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23-03-2012, 09:01 AM
astroboy's Avatar
astroboy
Registered User

astroboy is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Bathurst NSW
Posts: 665
I have had the 70 - 200L IS F4 the 300L IS F4 and now the 100 - 400 , I used the 70 - 200 L for astro briefly and the 300 quite a lot the 300 was very good for astro at F5 , I have never used the 100 - 400 for astro and probably never will I doubt it has the quality and its also slow even wide open.
The 100-400 is very handy for birds and othe photography having IS and closer focus than the 400 5.6 L but the 400 F5.6 is said to be sharper.
So I'm keeping the 100-400 and may buy a Sigma 150 F2.8 OS macro for astro and macro stuff , the test reports show the sigma to be excellent wide open .
Its hard to find a zoom that really performs well for astro so maybe you need 2 lenses a long zoom for regular ( the 70 - 300 L sounds good ) and a fast prime ie the Sigma 150mm or the canon 200 2.8 L .

Zane
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 08:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement