Originally Posted by Marcio Souza
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
Reply With Quote