100-400L or new 70-300L

[nizwa29]

I am looking to upgrade my 70-300 kit lens and wondered if anyone has done a practical comparison between the new technology 70-300L lens compared with the old technology push / pull 100-400L mainly from an IQ and useability point of view.

I have done all the physical diameter, length, weight and cost comparisons but wanted peoples real life views on how they actually compare from a picture quality and useability point of view.

I also know that the 70-300L will not work with Canon 1.4x or 2.0x extenders and is very slow if used with other brands, the 100-400L can be used with the extenders but only in manual mode.

Decissions, decissions decissions.

[DAdeGroot]

Are you happy with the 70-300 focal length range ? Do you find yourself wanting for longer reach ?
Would 100mm be too long (on the short end of the range) for what you shoot ?

These are questions that will lead to your answer.

IQ wise, I've not seen the new 70-300L, but the 100-400L is capable of some very good images in the right hands. (I'd still rate the 400/5.6L as a better lens from an IQ point of view though).

[rwg717]

I'm a bit like Dave, haven't seen the 70-300 but the 100-400 I do know well, a very fine lens in my opinion:D
Richard

[Taipuha]

At the camera shop I tested my 70-300IS on a tripod V 70-300L taking shots of a property across the street. It was possible to to pick the shots from the L lens from the superior IQ but only just. The AF on the L lens was much faster and would make a real practical difference for wildlife.
Also looked at the 100-400L but did not so the comparison. In short the 400 was better for wildlife but it was big enogh to need a real decision to pick up and take out. The 70 -300L was likely to make more of a walk around.
Having said all that I have not made my final decision yet.

[Tonym]

I have the 100-400L and find it a excellent lens for use on wildlife and birds and I use a 1.4 TC with mine and it works well I believe. I have not used the new 70-300 so I can not comment on that lens. Even though the 100-400 has been around since the last century and is a push pull for focal lenght I find it very easy to use and rather like that kind of action now that I have become used to it. The extra 100 is very handy when chasing birds also, maybe it is due for an upgrade soon but I will still keep my old one, the only negative comment I have with the 100-400 is it is rather heavy for the wife to use.

[nizwa29]

All many thanks for the feedback, I don't use the 300 length all that much but when I do need it I have often found that it was not quite long enough :), during our UK spring, summer and autumn I try to get out and fly radio controlled aircraft and also go to shows when I find I could do with the extra reach. This is a case also where the faster AF would help.

I will keep pondering for a little longer as I will not actually be purchasing until March.

Another thought that I have had is to get a 70-200 with the 1.4x extender and a little later on buy a prime 300 f4L.

[harmo]

I also went through the big deliberation about which biggish lens to buy. In the end, I bought the 100-400 because it has IS (the 5.6L 400mm prime doesn't) and had more native reach than the 300mm options.

While I have absolutely no experience with the 70-300, I'm cautious about any focal ranges which the maximum length exceeds 3 times the minimum. Admittedly, in this sense, the 100-400 is 4x, and the 70-300 is only a bit more at 4.28x. The greater the difference, the more compromises, and more complex the lens gets.. losing valuable image quality.

In my experience of using the 100-400, it mostly sits at the longish end, and I still find that I want more reach, particularly with wildlife and bird photography. If that's important to you, then I'd recommend the 100-400 without any hesitation. But I need to stop down to f8 at the long end to maintain sharpness. Given that the IS system in the 100-400 is an older model... this lens can be a little unforgiving when you're first starting out. But if you've got a good holding technique (or a tripod) then you're probably ok.

However, if you don't think you need the >300mm range, or want a wider starting point and greater flexibility in the zoom range, then maybe the 70-300 would suit you more. The newer IS system and shorter focal length would be more forgiving than the 100-400.

In the end, I had to put serious thought about what sort of shots would I be taking, that would need a lens like one or the other. But in either case you'll have a flexible lens to play with. I chose reach, what you choose might be flexibility or forgiveness instead... or come to a similar decision to me..

Good luck!
Harmo

[nizwa29]

Harmo, thanks for the input it is helpful, the more i consider things the more I am coming down on the side of the shorter focal length

[John Finnan]

I have the 100 - 400 L and its a great lens
Its great for wildlife and sporting events which is where the shorter focal length comes in handy with its great range and the slide makes it very easy to adjust very quickly as the frame fills
Its not a walk around lens but it has its purpose and I would miss it if it was gone

[Bennymiata]

I have the 100-400L, and while it takes great shots, because of its size and weight, I often leave it out of my bag, unless I am doing something, or going somewhere where I know I have to have it.
Having said that, I mainly use it hand held and find I get great shots just using the built-in IS.
I've even used it with extension tubes to get sort-of macro shots!
However, if you want a walk-around lens for zoos and the like, I would probably buy the 70-300, although I have never tried it myself.

Don't be put off by the push-pull of the 100-400, once you get used to it, you'll wish all your lenses were like this, as you can zoom and manually tweak the focus in one go, without moving your left hand. If you are taking fast action shots, the push-pull is really excellent to use as it's much faster than using a ring to zoom, and then another ring to focus.