What to buy? Advise please!

I've been looking at two lenses for some time now and have been saving up for one of them (maybe I'll save up for the other another time).

I'm trying to decide between the:

• Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens
• Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens

I'll provide some context for you. I own the Canon 7D, last year I purchased the Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L lens, it replaced my aging Canon 28-135mm lens; I love this lens, it's super sharp, colors are great, the constant f/4 is nice and the focal range is excellent for what I use it for. I also have the Canon EF 70-300 non-l lens and use is a lot of wildlife, etc.

I like the idea of replacing my current glass with better glass that is in the same focal range as what I own, which is why I like the 70-300L. I really need the reach and the 100-400 is just too much $ and too much weight. I also enjoy taking photos of fungus in the fall and budding plant life in the spring with my current setup- which does a decent job but it's no macro by a long shot. I played with the 100mm macro L last year and loved it.

Does anyone have real-world comparison photos of the 70-300 L vs non-L or any advice?

I cannot comment on the L vs Non-L question but since I own a 100mm L IS Macro lens I think i can tell a bit about but beware its just my opinion and it might be different to your situation.

I am not a Professional photographer but a hobbyist and I own a 60D . I bought the 100mm IS L Macro when it was on special last year (799AUD).
but since its a specialized lens it stays most of the time in my bag and rarely comes out during spring or when i am stuck at home (not a lot).
I thought (that is just me) if I have a macro lens i will do more macro photography, but no, doesn't works like that.

If your case is like mine where you don't do a lot of macro shots all year around then Extension tubes or the non-L macro (60mm or 100mm) might be a economical choice but if you are into macro photography and do it a lot then by all means get the L Lens.

You need to determine what will be more useful 70-300 or the 100 Macro. You can use a 70-300 for macro using extension tubes but you cant use the 100mm macro to take 300mm shots.

hope this helps.

James,
I can't advise on the macro question. It really depends on what you prefer to shoot more.

Regarding the two zoom lenses I recommend the reviews on this site, they include sample pictures.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

and the ISO crops comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0

I considered the non-L as an upgrade to my EF-S 55-250, rented it for a long weekend, and did not see a relevant improvement. It is soft at the long end, and AF and IS is not that much different from the EF-S lens. Build quality did not justify the extra $$ for me, especially because I already had the EF-S.
The 70-300L is great: It's sharp, IS is great, the AF is fast - that will have a huge impact on your keeper rate when shooting wild life. IMO definitely worth the extra money. The 100-400 is older, the IS not as good, but it has the extra 100mm that are very useful for shooting wild life. Sometimes I still think I should have chosen that one, but I also like the shorter retracted length of the 70-300. If you excluded it because of weight and price, the 70-300L is definitely a good choice.

I can comment on the 70-300 non-L and L versions because I had one and have the other.
The non-L was good for what it was, a 70-200 IS USM for a lot less than the 70-200 f/4 L non-IS (at the time, now they're equal in price). AF was good, IS was good, even IQ was ok up to 200mm. But in the 200-300mm range, where I wanted it most, the lens just fell apart.
So I ditched it and got the 70-300L. Couldn't be happier. Compared to the 100-400L it's better and newer, and cheaper (now, although at the time they were equal). I could carry it all day (and often do) on my 7D, it's one of those "the lens is an extension of my eyes" things, where it just works without me even noticing. According to test charts and whatnot it's sharper at the 70mm end and still falls off a bit at 300mm, but I honestly can't tell the difference, to me it's sharp everywhere (maybe my 7D sensor doesn't stress it enough).

As for the 100L macro, that's also a wonderful lens by all accounts but I've never used one. What I can tell you is that the 70-300L and a set of Kenko Extension Tubes also makes a very nice occasional-macro setup. IS is only 'regular' not 'hybrid', and for macro you really should MF anyway when using a slow zoom lens on tubes (I presume AF on a real macro lens like the 100L you can leave on when 'in the field', still use MF in the studio), but besides that you still get the great IQ using the zoom on tubes.

I'd say the real decision is yours, Macro (and a nice Portrait lens), or 300mm built like a tank for Wildlife?

I think I'm going to go with the 70-300L brand new and hopefully get the macro lens sometime down the road used at a good price. I know I'd have a lot of fun with that lens, I just want to replace my 70-300 with better glass as I use that lens a lot. Also, the current rebate Canon has for the lenses, the area where it helps me the most is on the 70-300L as it brings it down into my affordability range.

Go hurry, the rebates are scheduled to end on January 31st.
If you are planning to use the lens on a tripod, I can recommend the tripod collar from Fotodiox (check on Amazon) for around $40. The original Canon tripod collar for this lens is ridiculously expensive. But I haven't really used it on a tripod other than testing/playing around, so you might as well not buy a collar at all.

The 70-300L should arrive tomorrow! Too bad I won't be able to test it outside as by the time I arrive home it'll be dark. I'll have to take it to work Tuesday and get out on my lunch break...

My best advice to you and believe me you will never regret, is , get Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens, I know its pricey, but worth every penny.

The lens arrived today. My first impressions so far:

• it's heavier than I expected (I got the specs from the review here but didn't expect it to be that heavy, it's still very manageable though)
• it's very quiet at auto-focusing
• while taking photos indoors, it's very sharp (I'll be sure to test it during break tomorrow outside)
• it's going to take me awhile to get used to the focus ring being at the end of the lens
• I can't wait to test this with some wild life

Here's a couple of quick indoor photos with a flash (when you zoom it at 75% in ZoomBrowser, it's still very clear, just like it is with my 24-105L- I love that!):
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8082/8...c9d61c39_h.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8088/8...7469b25f_h.jpg

Looks pretty good to me! Have fun with the new purchase and I look forward to seeing some more shots.

Agreed. Nice sharp photos from corner to corner. At times I've been tempted by the 70-300L. Seems like a great lens.

I went out today after the snowstorm and took some photos of chickadees and chipmunks (it's all I could find) and here's what I think so far:

• It's sharp, even in the corners
• Speaking of it's sharpness, I used my normal sharpening methods that I normally apply on other photos and it was TOO much, wow!
• Colors and contrast are great
• AF is quieter than the non-L version and faster
• The zoom ring isn't so bad now that I've gotten used to it

I love my 70-300L. My camera sits in my bag with it attached. It's my everyday lens. Pair it up with a 5D MkIII or a 6D and it will do wondrous things.

This is 300mm f5.6, 1/320 sec, ISO 16000 on the 6D. (And no, I didn't mistakenly add a zero.)

http://bimmermail.com/kitties/squishy14-sm.jpg

Same lens/camera combo. This one at 140mm f4.5, ISO 25600, 1/30 sec handheld.

http://bimmermail.com/kitties/squishy12-sm.jpg