Printable View
Looking at adding an intermediate zoom lens. Will have 500mmF4 as main telephoto lens
Want to replace a 70-200f4 which i rarely used, and can't see paying the extra $$ for the f2.8 version which would almost always have a tele-convertor on it
How does the newer 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS compare to the 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS?
Any comments/other suggestions or personal experience would be appreciated
Thanks
PH
Peter,
I have both 70-300mm and 100-400mm. 70-300mm is way sharper and faster than 100-400. My vote goes to 70-300mm any day.
-sid
The lens is good! I replaced my 70-200 f/4 with the 70-300 L and never looked back. Of course the rumored new 100-400 is potentially an attractive option; but it will weigh far more than the 70-300.
The 70-300 is a terrific "walkaround lens"...it's wonderfully sharp at 300mm, wide open, and the lens weighs enough to feel sturdy but is light enough to carry around for hours on end...handholding is quite easy. I also replaced my 70-200 f4 with this lens and am MUCH happier now. The IS is great, too. i've never used the 100-400 so I can't speak to that. I will say that I am often wishing for an extra 100mm or so. And Doug Brown is quite right...the new 100-400 (which may or may not come out next year) will be heavier and heaven knows what price tag Canon will slap on it! The 70-300 offers good bang for your buck...
Hi,
I have the 100-400 L and 70-200 f/4 L IS, both are very good lenses and I have posted many images with the 100 400 L. I am contemplating on selling these two and going for the 70-300 L or 70-200 f/2.8 II as my main tele lens and add a Super tele like the 300 f/2.8 II or 500 f/4 II ( I am still agonizing over these two) as the long glass. Hope i am going in the right direction.
Sanjeev
I have the 70-300L and it is a fantastic lens.
I have the 70-300 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II and find myself picking up the 70-300 when I go out more than the 70-200. The sharpness is outstanding and with the higher iso cameras the slower speed doesn't seem to interfere with getting the image.
Mike
I would add: if 70-300 is the focal range you're looking for, this lens is terrific. If you'll find yourself missing the extra 100mm (plus crop factor) of a 100-400 then there's always the possibility of the updated version (coming soon, maybe maybe maybe) or even getting the existing version, which is apparently very good indeed...
Great to read the positive comments about the lens. Also thinking about replacing my 4/70-200L in the long term with this lens. Might be great for landscapes, particularly with the new 5D III. Markus
The 70-300L is my "go to" lens for lots of my photography! It's very versatile, with super fast focusing and exceptional sharpness. But, assuming you do buy it, you might want to think twice before investing $160 in the tripod ring! I did buy it, but it spends very little time on the lens...
Thanks everyone for the positive comments. Makes the buying decision easy
Peter
One of the great benefits of the 70-300 - I have it and love it - is that it collapses to a small package that goes into my vest pocket quite easily. It does not come with a tripod collar; order one through eBay. Do not pay Canon's ridiculous price for the a hinged piece of metal.
I am currently on my way to AK for brown bears. I will be shooting many images with a new 1DX and the 70-300L lens.
let you know how works out.
Chas
I sold my 70-200 f4 and 100-400 IS and am now using the 70-300 L. I have gotten very sharp images cropping it . I had a pretty acceptable less than 25% crop of a parrot which I printed at 20x30". IF I need the extra 100 mm, the crop is tack sharp at 50% with large prints if you do your part.
Go for it, check it out and you will love it. IF, like the old 100-400, there is one which is not up to specs, then exchange it. Evidently most if not all have excellent consistency.
I am thinking of selling my 70-200 f/4 L IS USM and 100-400 L and getting a 70-300 L instead, is this a good idea? For the long lens needs I plan to get the 500 f/4 II.
Cheers
Sanjeev
Hi Sanjeev, I can't speak to the quality of the 100-400 but I can tell you that the 70-300 is extremely sharp wide open at 300mm. Such sharpness allows for considerable cropping, if necessary. A 70-300 and 500 prime (with teleconverters) sounds like the ideal bird photography setup to me...
Will the 70-300 at 300 be any better than the 70-200 f/4+1.4x TC? The 70-300 is 1.05 kg, the 70-200 f/4 is 0.7 kg, and the 1.4x TCIII is 0.22 kg. According to the MTF charts at
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...ef_lens_lineup
the lenses are similar (but the 70-200+1.4x TC is not shown). If one wants the ability to zoom from 70-300 without using the TC, then the 70-300 makes sense. If one has the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4x TC, it is not clear to me that it is worth the change. It would be good to see an AF speed performance specification. I find the 70-200 f/4 (with no TC) OK in AF speed, but not as fast AF as my 300 f/2.8.
Roger
As far as AF speed is concerned: I found the 70-200 f4 a little on the slow side with the teleconverter on. It wasn't bad, but certainly not zippy. I find the 70-300's AF performance much better. Considerably faster to acquire focus, and better at holding focus. Certainly I have no tests to back this up, but I'm glad to contribute my experiential findings...Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Clark
Thanks Jack and Roger. I have the 70 200 f/4 IS +1.4 TC III. The AF is slower with the TC on, but very usable. IQ is very good in good lighting conditions. I seldom put on the TC as I prefer the 100 400 L if I need longer reach. The 70 200 is solid when it comes to portraits, landscapes and general wildlife, but the 100 400 is better for distant wildlife and birding. I was looking at the 70-300 L as a single lens solution to replace the 70-200 &100-400 L if and when I get my super tele, which I am leaning towards 500 II.
regards
sanjeev
