Waiting for this video from you so thank you. I have both lenses and you are on point 100%. I m debating on selling the 200-400 but can't bring myself to do it because of always shooting in low light. Sun never shines here. The 100-400 is superb and bought it for hiking and scouting the wildlife preserves. The minute I twist on the beast 200-400;I'm quickly reminded how good that lens ism a monster plain and simple. Having that 1 extra stop definitely helps in low light and it produces the most amazing images. It's a tough one as the 100-400 is so good. Most photographers couldn't tell the difference even with a slight crop on a mkii image printed to a reasonable size as your images show. The fact it's a hard decision is a testament of the bang for the buck value of the mkii. Keep them coming. Really enjoy your channel. Steve
Glad you agree! Luckily my dad owns the 100-400 and me a 200-400 so I can just borrow it as I need. But the 200-400 is so good and almost a dream lens to own so I can't get rid of it
I won't buy either. To use either you will certainly need a tripod. A much smaller lightweight 100-300mm can be hand held. Much better for action shots.
Age is just a number, I take photos with a 70 year old that hand holds a sigma 60-600.. saying "you will certainly need a tripod" is just wrong. You personally might want to use one if you had the lens but it's certainly not needed
@@MENSA.lady2for long shooting periods the weight can be annoying but I sold the 70-300L. I don’t get the design, it’s so chunky for no real reason and didn’t like the zoom ring
A good honest review
Thankyou!
Good comparison
Thankyou!
Waiting for this video from you so thank you. I have both lenses and you are on point 100%. I m debating on selling the 200-400 but can't bring myself to do it because of always shooting in low light. Sun never shines here. The 100-400 is superb and bought it for hiking and scouting the wildlife preserves. The minute I twist on the beast 200-400;I'm quickly reminded how good that lens ism a monster plain and simple. Having that 1 extra stop definitely helps in low light and it produces the most amazing images. It's a tough one as the 100-400 is so good. Most photographers couldn't tell the difference even with a slight crop on a mkii image printed to a reasonable size as your images show. The fact it's a hard decision is a testament of the bang for the buck value of the mkii. Keep them coming. Really enjoy your channel. Steve
Glad you agree! Luckily my dad owns the 100-400 and me a 200-400 so I can just borrow it as I need. But the 200-400 is so good and almost a dream lens to own so I can't get rid of it
I won't buy either. To use either you will certainly need a tripod. A much smaller lightweight 100-300mm can be hand held. Much better for action shots.
You don't need a tripod or even monopod with the 100-400, it weighs nothing
@@joewhitnallphotography As a 77 year old i disagree.. 95% of my photos are taken using a 25 to 170mm zoom. the rest a 50mm prime.
Age is just a number, I take photos with a 70 year old that hand holds a sigma 60-600.. saying "you will certainly need a tripod" is just wrong. You personally might want to use one if you had the lens but it's certainly not needed
@@MENSA.lady2for long shooting periods the weight can be annoying but I sold the 70-300L. I don’t get the design, it’s so chunky for no real reason and didn’t like the zoom ring