70-300L IS vs 100-400L IS II

[Patak]

what would be a better choice between these two lenses? i currently own 70-300 and really like the 70-180 range. i do not like heavy lenses but appreciate sharpness that comes with the new(er) lenses such is 100-400 v II. What would be your choice? i photograph everything.

 

[Ruined]

If you don't need 300-400mm that often, I think the 70-300L is a better buy, because it is:
1) Much Cheaper
2) Much Smaller
3) Significantly Lighter
4) A bit faster
5) Capable of 70-99mm
6) Similar in image quality

So really, it is up to you whether 301mm-400mm is worth the losing the above advantages.

Personally, I'd keep what you have and maybe pickup a 7D2 when they drop in price if you want a bit more reach.

 

[Rockets95]

If you eventually want to add a Canon extender to your collection it won't work with the 70-300mm L, but will work with the 100-400 L II.

 

[Loswr]

Both offer excellent IQ. I prefer the 70-300 for travel.

 

[old-pr-pix]

I can't help too much as I have the 70-300 non-L and the 100-400 L MkI and tend to use them more toward the long end. In reality for what I do - mostly web or flyer/brochures up to 11x17 - both of these lenses are great and IQ is sufficient. AF speed is what would interest me most with the new 100-400 MkII. (especially when something interrupts your plane of focus and lens has to reacquire.) IQ improvement would be appreciated but not significant for me. I like the lighter weight of the 70-300; but actually I've grown quite fond of my Olympus 40-150 f2.8 (ff equal 80-300) so am thinking perhaps the rumored new Canon 400 f5.6 Mk II will be my choice rather than the 100-400 L Mk II.

 

[Random Orbits]

Depends on whether or not you're happy with the 70-300L IQ. The 100-400L II is better, but it is also heavier and larger. If the 70-300L satisfies your IQ requirement (and you stated that 70-180 is where you use it most), then there is no reason to pay the premium for the new 100-400L II.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Depends on whether or not you're happy with the 70-300L IQ. The 100-400L II is better, but it is also heavier and larger. If the 70-300L satisfies your IQ requirement (and you stated that 70-180 is where you use it most), then there is no reason to pay the premium for the new 100-400L II.

If you don't use 300-400mm FL very often and want something more compact and lighter I'd stay with the 70-300L.
I own the 70-200mm and sometimes I add a 1.4TC to get extra reach, however I found myself not getting close enough to the subject so, for me the option is the new 100-400L II because it also takes TC.

 

[candyman]

I sold my 70-300L and bought the 100-400L II
My motivation: I needed a longer reach and one that I could extend even furter with my 1.4xIII extender.
The 100-400L II is a great lens for extending your focal range. For example I can get more close to small birds
It's not a cheap lens but cheaper for that focal range compared to those beautiful white big primes. It's all about focal range. If you don't need that, forget about the 100-400L II
As being said here; the 70-300L is smaller and lighter compared to the 100-400L II. So, for travelling more suited. In terms of IQ they are more or less equal.

 

[Aichbus]

It depends on the type of photography you are doing. Sharpnesswise they are about the same. If you want to travel light, you should prefer the 70-300 L. Also, it depends a bit on what other lens you take along. If it is a 16-35 only, then I find the gap between 35 and 70 acceptable, but the gap between 35 - 100 too big. If you often find that 300 mm are too short, then the 100-400 is clearly the better choice, especially when paired with a 1.4x or even 2x. I have both. I take the 70-300 L if I want to travel very light OR if I also take my 600 L. I take the 100-400 if I leave the 600 L at home and still still need the reach.

 

[Joey]

I disposed of my 70-300L when I bought the 100-400LII. Both perform superbly, the 100-400 possibly very slightly better - there's some new technology in there, including fancy coatings. The 100-400 also comes with a neat tripod foot (Canon offer an optional foot for the 70-300 but it costs an arm and a leg) and works with the Canon extenders. I tend to use the lens towards the long end of its range so these are important considerations for me. I'm happy with my decision to change. Your criteria may be different than mine, though...

 

[e17paul]

what would be a better choice between these two lenses? i currently own 70-300 and really like the 70-180 range. i do not like heavy lenses but appreciate sharpness that comes with the new(er) lenses such is 100-400 v II. What would be your choice? i photograph everything.

I'm assuming that the 700-300 you already own is one of the non L models. I tried those, and wished that they had been better so that I could avoid the cost of the 70-300L. Now I have it, I love it, except when I don't want to stand out from the crowd with a fat white lens. It's more compact (shorter) than the 70-200/4L, and makes the camera feel less front heavy because it is so short. It will be a worthy upgrade from other 70-300 lenses.

I decided against the original 100-400L because of it's two stop IS. Since purchase the mark II has come along, and I cast envious glances at the extra features it has compared to the 70-300L. The focus limiter would sometimes be useful, and the zoom ring adjustment would be reassuring for the long term. The difference in cost is less than the sticker price shows, because of the included tripod mount and padded case that come with the 100-400L II but not the 70-300L.

If weather sealing is not important, and your need is not immediate, a 70-300 STM with much improved optics from the existing black 70-300 lenses is expected. That could save some money to go towards more lenses...

 

[sunnyVan]

what would be a better choice between these two lenses? i currently own 70-300 and really like the 70-180 range. i do not like heavy lenses but appreciate sharpness that comes with the new(er) lenses such is 100-400 v II. What would be your choice? i photograph everything.

New or not is relative. The 70-300L was introduced only a few years ago and has had stellar reviews.

The 70-300 can be packed vertically in the camera bag like any other lenses. The 100-400 is about the same size as the 70-200 2.8 which means it has to be stored horizontally thus taking up a lot of room. If you shoot birds and wildlife the 100-400 + extender will serve you well. If you just need a general purpose Tele, the 70-300L is more suitable. I certainly enjoy shooting with 70-300 more than with 70-200 2.8 when I travel (because of the weight). So I don't think I'll enjoy 100-400 very much. Image quality of 70-300 is great! I don't mind shooting wide open with at all. The only thing I don't like and can't quite get used to is the zoom ring. I don't like the zoom ring and focus ring reversed.

 

[Stu_bert]

You can add a third party converter for the 70-300l and you can also buy a collar from china via eBay which is about 20 GBP IIRC. Other than that, I think other people have covered the differences / choices...

Have you considered the tamron or sigma if you want the additional reach? There's a number of threads on those lenses here, and I believe a comparison between the 100-400 with 1.4 in comparison to them on the web (Google is your friend)

 

[setterguy]

The Tamron 140f-CA 1.4X works very well with the 70-300mm lens and is more compact than my Canon 1.4X. It will work with the 6D and the 7D but not with the new 7D II. I am hoping that an update will come along that allows me to use it with the new 7D II. I just got the 70-33mmL and I am very happy with it.

 

[RGF]

what would be a better choice between these two lenses? ...i do not like heavy lenses

You told us your criteria - weight. Go with the 70-300L. If you need range and can tolerate the weight, go with the 100-400 II.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

The 70-300L is the lighter of the two (by a bit of a margin), but understand that it's not a light lens by any means.

I don't know whether you shoot crop or FF, but some of the crop teles (EF-S 55-250 STM, EF-M 55-200 STM) are super light, plus they're actually quite decent for the money. Price/performance ratio is very high. If you MUST have an L tele, if quality is the priority I'd go with 100-400L; if weight is the priority I would go with 70-300L. A compromise between the two might be the 70-200 f4 IS. Lose some range, gain some length/size but is lighter than both the 70-300 and 100-400, and a bit sharper too.

 

[Ruined]

The 70-300L is the lighter of the two (by a bit of a margin), but understand that it's not a light lens by any means.

I don't know whether you shoot crop or FF, but some of the crop teles (EF-S 55-250 STM, EF-M 55-200 STM) are super light, plus they're actually quite decent for the money. Price/performance ratio is very high. If you MUST have an L tele, if quality is the priority I'd go with 100-400L; if weight is the priority I would go with 70-300L. A compromise between the two might be the 70-200 f4 IS. Lose some range, gain some length/size but is lighter than both the 70-300 and 100-400, and a bit sharper too.

The 70-200 f/4L is not significantly sharper than the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IMO. They are in the same ballpark:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

The main thing you gain with the 70-200 f/4 is the constant f/4 aperture and smaller size. But if you need more than 200mm, then the 70-300L is a great option.

Also, the 70-300L is about 30% lighter than the 100-400, which is rather significant - and much shorter as well so it fits better in a camera bag vertically. While it is not super light or super portable, it is definitely the lighter and more portable of these two FF options with range >200mm.

 

[Loswr]

The 70-200 f/4L is not significantly sharper than the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IMO. They are in the same ballpark:

The main thing you gain with the 70-200 f/4 is the constant f/4 aperture and smaller size.

Smaller diameter. The (retracted) 70-300L is shorter than the constant-length 70-200/4, and one main reason I chose the 70-300L over the 70-200/4 IS as a travel telezoom is the 70-300 fits 'vertically' in my several backpacks, whereas the longer 70-200/4 would need to lay flat and thus take up two compartments instead of one.

 

[chas1113]

I find the 70-100mm end of the 70-300L very valuable. Something you can't get with the 100-400 II. If you want the "equivalent" length, put the 70-300L on a crop body. I have an SL-1/100D just for that reason. It's a very light, reach-oriented combination.

—chas

 

[pj1974]

I’m glad to read many people echoing (also my) very positive thoughts about the 70-300mm L. It’s a great lens on either APS-C or FF, and has a great feature set (USM, 4-stop IS, etc), fantastic IQ, solid L construction– and yet is really portable.

For travel, or as the OP stated, if one doesn’t like heavy (or long) lenses, then the 70-300mm L fits the bill so well. I have just taken it with me (and my wife) the other weekend for a day out, and I love this lens on my 7D… great for birds, portraits and just general photography outdoors.

I much prefer the 70-300mm L to the 70-200mm f/4 (as 200mm is too short for me, and the length of the f/4 lens is again, makes it not as portable).

The 100-400mm mkII certainly is also a great lens, and has that extra 100mm on the tele end, but it’s a completely different size (and shape). IQ between these 2 lenses is very very similar (you’d need to be a pixel peeper to notice the difference!) While I’d love my lens to be a 400mm (or even better 500mm or 600mm) – none of those lenses are ‘truly portable’ imho. For me, the 30mm difference on the wide end is important too.

Go with the 70-300mm L – I highly doubt you will be disappointed!

Paul