Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L

[mlino]

I bought a Canon 100-400L from Amazon and it still unopened. I read the review about the new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L and I'm very impressed about this new lens and thinking to return the Canon 100-400 and buy the new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L.

I would like to know the opnion from you guys to help me decide this question... I will use this lens with a Canon 50D.

Thanks,

[thekingb]

I did exactly that - returned a 100-400 in favor of a 70-300. But then my 70-300 copy

[neuroanatomist]

I really like my 100-400mm on my 7D - very sharp. Based on the reviews, the new 70-300mm L looks like a great lens. But, thekingb is right - sometimes, you need the extra 100mm. With the 100-400mm and 7D, I shoot birds frequently, and I often still find I need to crop the images (which has me considering the 500mm f/4L), so for that use I would definitely not be willing to give up the 100mm (in fact, my first white lens was the 300mm f/4L IS, and I went to the 100-400mm for the extra reach).

[Sheiky]

I agree John, however...

sometimes, you need the extra 100mm

And sometimes you need the better IS, the smaller weight and size, the weather sealing, the handling of a non-push-pull-zoom and perhaps the small increase of image quality []


Hehe, it's basically a very personal thing I think. I have used the 100-400 before and I loved it. (not quite sure about the size and push-pull zooming though) However almost all of the photos I shot with it were at 400mm, so that 100mm did make sense to me. However I also had to stop shooting due to rain, which wouldn't have happened with the 70-300L.....Wish you could have them both []


Kidding aside, if there was a 400mm f5.6L IS, in the same budget, I would have bought that one.

[thekingb]

Kidding aside, if there was a 400mm f5.6L IS, in the same budget, I would have bought that one.

I dream about such a lens.


And a 500mm f/5.6L IS because the f/4 version is a big chunk of change.

[neuroanatomist]

Jan, I absolutely agree about the size and sealing - in fact, that

[scalesusa]

I would never consider trading my 100-400 for the new 70-300mmL. However, each of us has their own priorities. It is light weight and takes up less space. However, if you ever step up to FF or a 1D series, you will want the 400mm.


Also be aware that Canon TC

[Kayaker72]

I bought a Canon 100-400L from Amazon and it still unopened.

Marcio,


Have you opened it yet? [] It is a great lens. I went through a similar debate right when the 70-300L was announced. I bought the 100-400L and have no regrets. Like others, I am actually finding I want more reach, not less. That said,you are debating two great and very similar lenses. To differentiate between the two, youshould be as specific as possible aboutwhat you want and what you will be taking pictures of. In other words, do you need the reach? If you don't think you'll need the extra 100 mm, then, based onwhat I've read, as I don't have one,the 70-300L is better from 100-300 mm (slightly sharper, I repeatedly read comments about "fast AF," weather sealing, IS, etc). And let's not forget the70-100 mm range. I don't know if you have that range covered by other lenses, but if not, that would be another plus for the 70-300L.


In short, if you want a "general telephoto zoom" where you are taking pictures of landscapes, animals as part of landscapes, large subjects, or subjects somewhat close to you or just want the modern technolgoy, I'd say go with the 70-300L. But if you are going to start trying to take pictures ofeither large animals far away or small animals/birds close by, get all the reach you can afford. []


Brant

[Sheiky]

I absolutely agree about the size and sealing - in fact, that's why I have been considering (and still am!) getting the 70-300mm L, despite having both the 100-400mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

If you'd use a 1.4x extender on your 70-200 it would cancel out the weather sealing benefit. The 70-300L's most important extra feature would be the relatively small size then. And if that;s worth buying a 1500 dollar lens for...that's up to you[]

If they ever release a 500mm f/5.6L IS, I'll certainly get one. Heck, even a 400mm f/5.6L IS would be wonderful, since presumably it would have the new IS and be weather-sealed, unlike the current version of that prime lens.

Yes that would be great. I think a 500mm would cost a lot more than a revision of the 400mm f5.6. So I'd rather see that one coming in the same price-range. But after last years announcements, I'm not seeing this happening anywhere soon.

[neuroanatomist]

If you'd use a 1.4x extender on your 70-200 it would cancel out the weather sealing benefit.

How? The teleconverters (at least, the MkII and MkIII versions) are weather-sealed, and maintain sealing when used with a sealed lens and body.