Sleekjet From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2045 posts, RR: 24 Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3079 times:
Since I've owned my 70-200 f/4 L for all of 5 months now, it is certainly time to upgrade. I don't want to spend more than $1500-1700...and at that it will take many months of saving.
I thinking in terms of the 100-400 IS L. But I don't want to invest this much dough and then get the urge to upgrade 5 months later.
LHRsunriser From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 399 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3025 times:
Hi,
Phew you aim high. That is what i could only wish for. I don't know how the 100-400 compares to the 70-200. I always thought the 200 was extremely good when hearing from others.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2970 times:
In terms of image quality, the 70-200 beats the 100-400 by some way. If you want to retain image quality and increase your range, you need to be looking at primes.
The 300mm f4L is in your price range, and with a 1.4x convertor will give you 400mm and still retain the quality you're used to.
JAT74L From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 618 posts, RR: 16 Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2958 times:
Tim,
Even though the 1.6 multiply gives 112-320 on digital? I am thinking of the 100-400 IS and also the 70-200 non IS with 1.4 converter that only loses one stop on the 2.8
John
I like trains just as much as planes but trains don't like the Atlantic!
Tin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 266 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2858 times:
I had a 100-400 and a 70-200f4. Both nice lenses. I wasn't keen on the 100-400 as I really didn't like the push pull zoom, which does act a little like a vacuum cleaner as dust does get inside eventually. I aslo found "my one" a little soft at the long end wide open. Others seem to be better so maybe mine was a bad apple.
The 70-200f4 is a great lens, light and produces great results, but limited on it's own.
I sold both and bought a 70-200f2.8 IS and a 300 prime. The 70-200f2.8 is an excellent lens that I use a lot with and without the 1.4x extender. I did have a Sigma 300 f2.8 that produced great results but mine fell apart after 5 months and I managed to take it back recently and now have a Canon 300 f4 IS.
In your situation I'd keep the 70-200 and if you want to get the longer reach buy the 300f4 IS. It's much lighter than the 100-400, and produces better results at 300 and 420 when a 1.4x extender is added.
Rotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2817 times:
ciao guys,
why not go for the Sigma 110 - 300mm 2.8 HSM ? i own it, and I am totally satisfied .... , it doesnt have a kind of IS , but with a aperture of 2.8 u might not need it .... , the HSM is equivalent to the USM .....
ahhh, small thing u Canon guys might not like its a black lens, and Canon guys are normally very proud of thier grey lenses ...
also got extremly sharp images with a attched 2x converter .....
Tin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 266 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2737 times:
ahhh, small thing u Canon guys might not like its a black lens, and Canon guys are normally very proud of thier grey lenses ...
I am Canon through and through, but was persuaded to go to the dark side and a black lens. I tried the a Sigma 300 f2.8 EX HSM, great results but terrible build quality. Back to white and pleased I did.
Tappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 46 Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2717 times:
When I leave this earth I want to be buried alongside my Canon 600 F4
Mark Garfinkel
Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2158 posts, RR: 22 Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2696 times:
Not that i know anything, but i photograph along side with a guy who I think glued his 100-400L IS onto his camera.... very versitile! And one day he put his 2x converter and got some amazing nose close-ups!
I think I will get that lense in the future when i see it fit to spend some $$$
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 50 Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2679 times:
Colin wrote:
Hell Mark, you could probably be buried IN a 600 f4
I would say the case that comes with the lens is big enough......
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2045 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 399 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2158 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
