70-300L / 100-400L / Keep 70-200

[CanonMan]

Hi. Another lens question and a big decision for me.
i currently use a 70-200L F4 (original NON-IS version) and it is a great lens. However i always these days use it in combination with a 1.4 mark II teleconverter.
should i replace these with the new 70-300L IS or the 100-400 (i will not have the funds for the new version if and when it comes out as it is bound to be a lot more expensive than the current version) or keep what i have ?
i mainly shoot around the 250-300 range but up to 400 might sometimes be useful.
Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated.

 

[mwh1964]

I have the 70-300 L. In my opinion it's a very good lens which I certainly can recommend for shooting in the 250-300 range. Compared to the 100-400L you get a lens which is a lot lighter and smaller and has a newer generation of IS. If you don't need the extra reach, I don't see the point in the 100-400L. If you do want to go beyond 300 though then be aware that the 70-300L doesn't take TC in which case you may be better of with 100-400L. Just my 2C.

 

[rs]

I have the 70-300 L. In my opinion it's a very good lens which I certainly can recommend for shooting in the 250-300 range. Compared to the 100-400L you get a lens which is a lot lighter and smaller and has a newer generation of IS. If you don't need the extra reach, I don't see the point in the 100-400L. If you do want to go beyond 300 though then be aware that the 70-300L doesn't take TC in which case you may be better of with 100-400L. Just my 2C.

I fully agree, except the 70-300L can in certain circumstances take a TC:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=3266

If you need more than 300mm and cropping isn't good enough for you, you'll be much better off with the 100-400 than using this work around.

 

[Loswr]

The shots at 250-280mm, do you often need to crop them in post? If so, get the 100-400.

 

[chas1113]

I had the EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS with a teleconverter for a while. After getting the EF 70-300mm L I did a side-by-side test at 280mm. No contest. The 70-300mm bested the 70-200 + TC in color, contrast and sharpness quite handily. Also, there was significantly more flaring with the TC. The actual reach of the 70-200mm + TC is virtually identical, because like most tele-zooms what you get is not quite what you see. Even at 70mm, the two have slightly differing field of views. This may or may not matter to you. As far as weight, the 70-300 L doesn't weigh that much more than the 70-200mm + TC. And the weight distribution is actually better (closer to the body).

In the end, I sold the 70-200mm f/4 IS and kept the 70-300 L. If you have a third party TC and keep it (as I did), you'll find it played much better with the 70-200mm L. The 70-300mm L really doesn't "like" my TC much at all. I kept it mainly for use with my 300 prime.

—chas

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I love my 70-300L. I actually find that it works quite well with my Kenko teleconverter (Pro 300) - just make sure you have AFMA done right on the bare lens. I too sold my 70-200 f/4L IS along with a Tamron 70-300 VC when I got it.

This was shot in terrible conditions (I just couldn't get close and didn't have time to wait around) last week. It's not a great picture, but I attach it to show the 100% crop. This was wide open (f/8) with the 70-300L and Kenko 1.4x - 420mm. 100% crop shows how nicely sharp the image is, particularly considering that I was shooting through layers of tree and grass.

 

[bholliman]

I recommend the 70-300L. I owned a 100-400 (sold it last summer) and used a friends 70-300 extensively. I think the IQ and image stabilzation on the newer 70-300L are better. As others have recommended, there are some TC options or you could crop for your longer ranged shots.

 

[Random Orbits]

Another option is to get the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II. It's a heavier option, but it will deliver almost as good IQ as the 70-300L at f/4 at 280mm and will be better than the 70-300L + 1.4x at 400mm and will only be at f/5.6. The disadvantages are weight and length.

If you don't have any other lenses (after trading in your 70-200 f/4) along that focal length range, then the 70-200 II + TCs might be the way to go especially if you can use it for portraiture and sports at the shorter focal lengths.

The 70-300L and 70-400L are both good lenses but are not as well suited for portraiture/sports. The 70-300L is lighter and more compact than the 70-200 II while the 100-400 is more compact and about the same weight as the bare 70-200 II. If you only need to get to 300mm and want something compact, the 70-300L is a good choice. If you need to get to 400mm, then the 70-200II + TC and the 100-400 are better options.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's an interesting observation: I shot an event a weekend ago and used over the course of several days: the 135L (and, at times, 135L + 1.4x II), 100L IS, Tamron 24-70VC, and the 70-300L. I didn't even plan on using it, as I consider it too slow for indoor work. But I was surprised to find that my sharpest images from the event were actually taken with the 70-300L.

This was taken from roughly 60 feet away, 300mm, wide open (f/5.6). For this type of work, I find the result pretty stunning. I've included a 100% crop (the first square crop is already reduced slightly to get the square crop for a portrait orientation shot).

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

P.S. There was no post work on this at all - only a RAW conversion.

 

[Sporgon]

Here's an interesting observation: I shot an event a weekend ago and used over the course of several days: the 135L (and, at times, 135L + 1.4x II), 100L IS, Tamron 24-70VC, and the 70-300L. I didn't even plan on using it, as I consider it too slow for indoor work. But I was surprised to find that my sharpest images from the event were actually taken with the 70-300L.

This was taken from roughly 60 feet away, 300mm, wide open (f/5.6). For this type of work, I find the result pretty stunning. I've included a 100% crop (the first square crop is already reduced slightly to get the square crop for a portrait orientation shot).

I presume the 70-300 has beaten the 135 + 1.4x due to IS and greater magnification.

Anyway with lenses like this about at these functions I guess there's going to be a lot more male grooming required before speaking ;D

 

[CanonMan]

Hi. Many thanks for all the reply's and information. I am also upgrading from a XSi 450D to a 60D so the money I am saving on not waiting for the new 70D I have decided to now put towards the 70-300L IS. As cropping is not an issue for me this is my best option. I will trade in my 70-200F4 and 1.4 II teleconverter and use to purchase in the future either the 400 Prime or the 24-105L.
Hopefully next weekend I will be shooting with the 70-300L IS on my new 60D.

Thanks again for your comments.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's an interesting observation: I shot an event a weekend ago and used over the course of several days: the 135L (and, at times, 135L + 1.4x II), 100L IS, Tamron 24-70VC, and the 70-300L. I didn't even plan on using it, as I consider it too slow for indoor work. But I was surprised to find that my sharpest images from the event were actually taken with the 70-300L.

This was taken from roughly 60 feet away, 300mm, wide open (f/5.6). For this type of work, I find the result pretty stunning. I've included a 100% crop (the first square crop is already reduced slightly to get the square crop for a portrait orientation shot).

I presume the 70-300 has beaten the 135 + 1.4x due to IS and greater magnification.

Anyway with lenses like this about at these functions I guess there's going to be a lot more male grooming required before speaking ;D

You are exactly right. I don't know that the 70-300L outresolves the 135L (I actually doubt that it does), but the IS is huge, as is the improved magnification. The reasons, however, matter less than the finished result, which was surprisingly good. Since I was doing a lot of spot metering under bright lights, my ISO actually stayed pretty low. Different lighting would produce different results, and the 135L would obviously fair better under more even lighting conditions because its improved light gathering would be more of a factor.

It makes me anxious to see what Sigma does with the rumored 135mm f/1.8 OS - an image stablizer in a lens like that would be huge for my event work - particularly if it handled a 1.4x extender well.