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

[expatinasia]

I think you need to carefully consider whether your lens needs may change in the future, and if so how.

I have the 70-300L but must have used it just a couple of times - and never on a job. Now it spends its entire time in a cupboard, and I do not even miss it. If I had time I would sell it, and really wish I had not even bought it as it just does not meet my needs.

Is it a nice lens? Sure, but it doesn't match up to others, and if you ever think you may need longer than 300 then that can be annoying as it does not take Canon extenders properly, though it does Kenko.

 

[Marsu42]

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

+1, the difference in sharpness with test charts will seldom manifest in real life "everything" shooting. Both aren't close to real, expensive tele primes so you have to make allowances.

The 70-100 range is what makes the 70-300L so versatile, it's "just" wide enough to use it as a "keep on" lens while the 100-400L is a dedicated tele zoom.

 

[e_honda]

I just got my 100-400 II ( great deal for US customers if you buy from Camera Canada with the exchange rate these days) and tried it out a bit. It definitely met my expectations for sharpness and the handling is nice.

I will say that I was surprised that the difference between 300mm and 400mm wasn't nearly as great as I thought it would be. So it's good and I'll probably get the 1.4x III extender to get more range and probably sell my 70-300L.

But IMO, if you're not going to get the extender, I just don't see a huge difference in focal length between 300mm and 400mm to justify the extra cost. Maybe I haven't done enough wild life work to understand the true scope of difference between 300 and 400, but IMO the big advantage of the 100-400 II would be the ability to use the Canon extender.

But if you're not going to bother getting the Canon extender, I just don't think it's worth twice the price to go from 300 to 400mm.

My scorecard that the 100-400 II has over the 70-300L
-Better build quality
-Adjustable tightness on the zoom ring
-Carrying case (70-300L includes that useless canvas pouch that nobody ever uses)
-Tripod mount (no tripod mount included with the 70-300L)
-Close focusing ability
-Better IS performance (Presumably so. I haven't put this to the test)
-Ability to take the Canon 1.4x extender

So nothing against the quality or performance of this lens at all. I was just surprised that there doesn't appear to be a huge difference between 300 and 400mm.

 

[pwp]

what would be a better choice between these two lenses? i currently own 70-300 and really like the 70-180 range.

I'm assuming that the 70-300 you already own is one of the non L models.

The OP notes in his footer that he has a L 70-300. The non-L is very hit & miss!
OP, keep your current lens, it's highly regarded and is lots of shooters favourite.

-pw