100-400mm vs. 70-300L for basically the same exact price used? Which one?

[wickidwombat]

my question is do you need the zoom?

the 300 f4L IS is a really sweet option too and can be had second hand for around $800
put a 1.4 Tc on this and you have 420mm @f5.6 with IS
its a really nice weight and balance on any camera very nice IQ too

@300mm its a full stop faster than the other 2 lenses you mentioned

worth considering as an option

if i need the zoom i'll tend to go with my 70-200 I typically find at the longer focal length you are chasing all the reach you can get so the longer primes work well

of course there is also the 70-200 f2.8L with a 2x TC giving you 140-400 f5.6 as an option that includes zoom
more expensive though

 

[AJ]

Get the 100-400. It sounds like you need a bigger Canon

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I like my Canon 100-400mm L, and on my FF and my 1D MK IV, its very good at 400mm. For a crop camera, the 100-300mm L might be a very good choice.

 

[degies]

Quick question
When comparing the 100-400 to the 70-300 I am told the 100-400 does not have AF when you stick on the 2xTC.
Is that the case? :-\

 

[briansquibb]

I like my Canon 100-400mm L, and on my FF and my 1D MK IV, its very good at 400mm. For a crop camera, the 100-300mm L might be a very good choice.

On a ff the 70-300 is an excellent choice as a walkabout. It has better IS and better IQ - just loses out on the reach.

 

[lol]

Quick question
When comparing the 100-400 to the 70-300 I am told the 100-400 does not have AF when you stick on the 2xTC.
Is that the case? :-\

The 100-400L x2 doesn't phase AF through the viewfinder, but the camera does contrast AF in live view.

 

[Southernclicks]

I have both.... Tough call. The 100-400 is my old standby. Does a great job BUT..... the 70-300L has a great IS system that is VERY impressive. I shoot wildlife and when I'm just walking around in the woods the 70-300L would be my choice to carry around all day..... 70-300 has a lock that keeps the lens "short". The 100-400 tends to slide out and gets awkward to carry around. Yeah, you can tighten the 100-400 up and lock it down but then it's a two handed action to loosen it up. Both are great and both will serve you well. Until I can turn loose of one I think I'll keep both. If I could have only one I'd buy the 70-300L.....

 

[fsu_dan17]

my question is do you need the zoom?

the 300 f4L IS is a really sweet option too and can be had second hand for around $800
put a 1.4 Tc on this and you have 420mm @f5.6 with IS
its a really nice weight and balance on any camera very nice IQ too

@300mm its a full stop faster than the other 2 lenses you mentioned

worth considering as an option

if i need the zoom i'll tend to go with my 70-200 I typically find at the longer focal length you are chasing all the reach you can get so the longer primes work well

of course there is also the 70-200 f2.8L with a 2x TC giving you 140-400 f5.6 as an option that includes zoom
more expensive though

Would you say the image quality of the 70-200 f2.8 L II w/ 2x TC is better than the 100-400? The reason I ask is I am really considering the 70-200 f2.8L II but I am also considering the reach of something in the 400mm range because I like to shoot wildlife. I had been considering the 100-400, 300 f4 IS, and the 400 f5.6 but I really like the IQ and build quality of the 70-200 but I already have that range covered for the most part so I would probably us it alot with a TC attached.

 

[Loswr]

Would you say the image quality of the 70-200 f2.8 L II w/ 2x TC is better than the 100-400?

I wouldn't say that - the 70-200 II + 2x TC is decent, but falls a little short of the 100-400mm @ 400mm for IQ. Also, the 2x TC slows the AF speed by 75%, which may be an issue for some types of shooting.

 

[fsu_dan17]

what about the 300 f4 IS with 1.4 tC compared to 100-400 and the 400 f5.6? Basically I love the flex of a zoom but I know that primes have better IQ so I am trying to minimize IQ loss and purchase a zoom. I think a prime at that range wouldn't see as much use all around, besides I can always rent.

 

[Loswr]

what about the 300 f4 IS with 1.4 tC compared to 100-400 and the 400 f5.6? Basically I love the flex of a zoom but I know that primes have better IQ so I am trying to minimize IQ loss and purchase a zoom. I think a prime at that range wouldn't see as much use all around, besides I can always rent.

I went through the same decision process some time back, and picked the 100-400mm. At 400mm, I'd rank the IQ as 400/5.6 > 100-400 > 300/4+1.4x. I don't think it's a generally good idea to get a lens plus TC and plan to use it with the TC primarily - TCs are for occasional use. I picked the 100-400mm over the 400/5.6 because of the IS (not needed for fast-moving subjects, but for static subjects with an f/5.6 lens at 400mm, having IS can be a big help), and also for the flexibility of the zoom.

 

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

I'm fortunate to own both and have used both in similar situations. The 70-300L is extremely light, focuses fast and is tack sharp. The 100-400 has a longer reach, is considerably larger, heavier and focuses much slower.
Neither of these lenses function well with a teleconverter from Canon or Kenko.

I used both of these for active sports outdoors and both served their intended purposed well. I found that I used the 70-300L more since it covered the range I needed most and it was sharper and lighter than the 100-400.

Cons: 70-300L uses a 67mm filter and if you intend to use a step-up filter for any filter larger, like 77mm, its very difficult to use this in the field IF you are using the lens hood.

Price wise, they are very close. Rent them both first if you can to get the feel and experience the IQ of each.

Good luck.

 

[Marsu42]

Neither of these lenses function well with a teleconverter from Canon or Kenko.

... to be precise: Canon doesn't fit (or destroys your lens), but the Kenko works but you have to af at f8 which doesn't work with all bodies. It does with the 7d and 60d, but at least with the latter it's only for static objects in good light and you have to shoot a couple of pictures in case the af missed. But it works, and the iq is ok.

Cons: 70-300L uses a 67mm filter and if you intend to use a step-up filter for any filter larger, like 77mm, its very difficult to use this in the field IF you are using the lens hood.

Have you actually tried it? I haven't got 77mm filters, but the hood of the 70-300L has some space in it that looks like it's exactly designed to let it be used with 77mm, too. But you'd have to screw it on when the hood is already on.

 

[DanoPhoto]

Neither of these lenses function well with a teleconverter from Canon or Kenko.

... to be precise: Canon doesn't fit (or destroys your lens),

this confuses me...are you referring to the Canon TC?

 

[Marsu42]

this confuses me...are you referring to the Canon TC?

yup, the Canon tc only fits a couple of lenses while the Kenko fits all ef, but isn't weather-sealed.

 

[pj1974]

I own the 70-300L and have used the 100-400L also. They are more different lenses than their numbers suggest. The 100-400mm is more of a 'bird specialist' and often focal length limited answer, whereas the 70-300mm is more of a general purpose telephoto zoom.

For me, the choice to go 70-300L was mainly on its much superior portability. Furthermore for most of my telephoto shots, 300mm on my Canon 7D (equivalent to 480mm in FF / 35mm format) was sufficiently.

The 70-300L does have much better IS (4 stops vs 2 stops on the 100-400L) which does make a lot of difference. I don't like the 100-400L's pull-zoom action.

Good copies of both lenses can produce great photos when used by experienced and knowledgeable users. Though I would say that on the whole, the 70-300L has superior IQ (mine is particularly sharp and contrasty at all focal lengths, even wide open).

If I only had a FF camera - then the 70-300L wouldn't probably be enough reach for more of my needs. I have recently used a 5DmkIII and the difference from 1.6x crop to FF is remarkable, so I would be 'stuck' - because I'm not so keen on the size and handling of the 100-400L. But with my 7D, the 70-300L does the 'trick' - even making a handy candid / portrait lens.

I really appreciate how good the 70-300L is as a travel combination with my 7D and 15-85mm lens. I fit both in my shoulder LowePro bag often when I'm out taking photos. And I can shoot all day with this 2 lens combination.

Hope my perspective is helpful. 8)
Paul

 

[bycostello]

you answer your own question, you want 400mm on a crop sensor.... not sure about the stalking though!

 

[bionutcase]

I have the 100-400mm and use on my 7D. I love it particularly for small objects from long distance - birds and small animals. Bikinis? I think I'd go with 70-300 unless you want to get navel shots!

 

[bycostello]

but the 100-400 is a push pull zoom i think, sucks dust into the camera

 

[Marsu42]

but the 100-400 is a push pull zoom i think, sucks dust into the camera

All non-internal zooms sucks in air when zoomed out, how else would it work? By creating lower pressure inside the lens - that would be news to me. If you don't want this, get an internal zoom like the 70-200, but the downside is that they are as long when zoomed in as zoomed out, so it's bad for transport and carrying around.