Canon EF 70 - 200L or EF 100 -400L?

[roughcutter]

I've recently invested in my first full frame camera, it's a Canon EOS 1DS Mk.3. Very pleased with it, at 21mp the slow buffering in RAW takes a bit of getting used to, but good to go. I am also thinking of upgrading my lens, currently use an EF 100mm - 400mm f4.5L (Mk.1) which I've had for years. The trouble is I'm torn between choosing the mark 2 version of this well proven model, or more radically (for me) opting for EF 70mm - 200mm f2.8L (Mk.2). Obviously the 400 has the advantage of the focal length, but the 200 is faster, and counting on the massive crop factor of the camera offers a viable alternative?

[John flightpath]

I have weighed up these options many times. The scenario being, well if I was in this situation where I needed to make a move on lens's. I came to the conclusion in the end, that the 100-400 L may not be the right choice for me. Thus , concluded that the 70-200 L may be the better option. Also considering, if I needed the extra focal length, then carry a converter with me. Bearing in mind I am on a 750d cropped sensor, a 1.4x converter equates to almost 400mm at the top end anyway. Also price difference, and , do I really need IS on the lens. So, I deduced that a 70-200 L , IS or non IS would probably suit me and my budget. Having said all that, go with your gut feel and what you think is best for you and your kit. For me, having considered all the various and sometime tedious angles the 70-200 L made more sense than at first thought.

Cheers
John 'flightpath'.

[Mark]

throwing another option into the ring here. What with larger separation between the display line and the crowd at UK airshows, would the Sigma 150-600 sport lens not now be in contention?

I have recently picked one up to supplement my collection of smaller L series lenses that I use with my 7d mk II and although its yet to be used in anger on an aircraft it appears to be a darn good decision. Only negative thing I can say about it so far is the sheer weight of the thing!!

[Wallace]

The mk.1 100-400mm L was designed for your camera, while the mk 2 was really designed for the newer cameras.
One improvement, if you can do it is to see if the 1 mk III has any micro adjustment, to fine tune the focus.

Have a trawl through this https://www.dxomark.com/best-cameras-un ... 00-dollars you may find the answer there.

[roughcutter]

Cheers for the feedback guys, I've decided to be radical and go for the 200 option. It's all a learning curve at the end of the day.

[Miramar]

Just seen this so may have missed the boat.

I'm using the new 100-400 with a 7D2, and it's a great combination. I also have the 70-200 2.8 II, and it's the sharpest lens I have. I have tried the 70-200 on my 5D2 (FF) but for flying aircraft and it just doesn't have the reach. Quality yes, but reach no. If I add a TC, then I can get the reach, but the image will be slightly softer, and I lose the advantage of the 2.8. and have restricted AF points. Definitely worth borrowing or hiring the kit first as it's expensive to go round the loop again.

[Viper28]

The 100-400MK2 is a complete redesign of the lens and share next to nothing with the original MK1. At 400mm its sharper than my 300/2.8L with a 1.4TC on it and that's saying something. I would get the 100-400mk2 over the 70-200 and cropping any day. Your simply going to put more pixels on target. Given the 1DS3's reasonably good ISO performance the loose of a stop or two is not going to hurt that much for stuff in the air, also the MK2 has much improved IS so you can probably afford to drop the shutterspeed a bit as well