Canon 70-200 2.8 vs 100-400 5.6

Anyone have a 70-200 2.8 and a 100-400 5.6 canon lens? Do you have a preference for sharpness between the two?

I know both have their sweeter spots in the middle of focal range but does one produce better sharpness then the other?

I have both and am satisfied with both but have never run any deliberate or scientific tests. In other words, one indeed may be sharper than the other but for my purposes any difference has not been significant nor shown up in any way as far as usage of final images. Sharpness doesn't enter into any decisions over which to use. That decision is purely situational. JR

Steve, I had the 100-400 IS but only used it for a few months until I got the 400/5.6, which MUCH sharper. If you're mainly shooting wildlife, it is definitely worth considering, and it's a lot cheaper than the 100-400. My sister has the 70-200 non-IS and she gets very sharp photos from it, shooting mostly sports, even with a 1.4TC.
Hope that helps.
Michele

Hey Steve. I rented the 100-400 last year. I hated it.

They are much different lenses however so what are you looking to do with it?

Have you used this resource? I've found the information there to be very reliable when compared with my own results with various Canon lenses, and you can set up a comparison of the 70-200 f/2.8 at 200mm and f/4 with the 100-400 at 200mm and f/8 for a fairly substantial nod to the 70-200. The shorter zoom is the only one I have experience with, and all experiences are very good. I have been in the market for a fixed 400 f/5.6 at the right price for about a year though. There is just a need for long sometimes.

I have both (the IS version of the 70-200), and I think the 70-200 is generally sharper. However, the lenses get equal time. It all depends on the usage. If I'm shooting in the rainforest the 100-400 stays at home, but the it's is my backup lens in Yellowstone or Africa (to my 500) and my primary lens in a place like the Galapagos. Your choice may come down to what else is in your arsenal and what your primary needs are.

Max

I used to own both (I sold both and now have the 70-200 4.0). I found the 100-400 sharp enough, but definitely not as sharp as the 70-200 2.8. I never liked the push-pull zoom on the 100-400. It is awkward and a dust vacuum. I am really surprised Canon has not upgraded that lens after all the years it has been out.

BTW, I owned the 70-200 2.8 and 4.0 (both non-IS versions) at the same time during the transition. I did a critical sharpness test with both. It was very, very close, but the 4.0 was slightly sharper than the 2.8.

I have used the 100 400 IS, but never owned one. I never bought one, because the few times I used a friends, I just didn't think it was as sharp as my 300 f/4 w/1.4 tc attached which is less expensive and has IS (BTW, which the 400 f/5.6 does not). I have also owned the 70-200 f/4 and currently have the 70-200 f/2.8. Both are sharp and sharper than the 100-400, but Harley is correct...the 70-200 f/4 IS is actually sharper than the f/2.8 version through and through.

We have the 300 f4, 70/200 f2.8 and 100/400 tested not sharp at 400mm
The use of 1.4 extender on the 300 = 420 sharp
The use of 2.0 extender on the 70/200 =400 sharp as well as 1.4 extender