LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Canon 70-300 vs Canon 100-400

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 20 Oct 2005 (Thursday) 07:25   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
slicendice
Senior Member
Joined Feb 2005
461 posts
Manchester, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

I guess the bottom line is that the 100-400 is going to be better, being L and all that.....but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with both of these lenses? The 100-400 obviously costs a lot more than the 70-300....is the difference in image quality proportionally the same too?

I have had a bonus of sorts from work and whilst it would cover the cost of a 100-400, it is still (by my standards anyway!) a LOT of money to lay down on a lens. I guess my question really stems from the "sensible" part of my brain that mutters "can you really justify spending that much on a lens?!?". (Admittedly it is not a part of my brain that does get over-worked!)

Comments/thoughts appreciated....!

(I guess I should mention that by 70-300 I mean the new DO IS 70-300!)

Post #1, Oct 20, 2005 07:25:23


Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy

Canon EOS 40D, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 17-55 2.8, Tamron 28-75 F2.8, Canon 580EX
Cokin ND and ND Grad filters,
Lowepro Mini Trekker AW

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
nitsch
Goldmember
Joined Feb 2005
2,393 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Well if you wait a couple of days I will be able to answer that question for you. I am replacing my 70-300 DO with a 100-400. My reason for doing this is because I am interested in shooting wildlife and 300 is too short so I wanted the extra mm's. I was very very happy with the image quality of the DO even at 300mm so I am very keen to see how the two lenses compare in the overlapping focal lengths. My 100-400 should arrive for the weekend so watch this space and I'll post some example shots.

Post #2, Oct 20, 2005 07:36:44




LOG IN TO REPLY
slicendice
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Feb 2005
461 posts
Manchester, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

Thanks nitsch....I look forwards to seeing the results from your neeeew 100-400!!

Post #3, Oct 20, 2005 07:48:21


Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy

Canon EOS 40D, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 17-55 2.8, Tamron 28-75 F2.8, Canon 580EX
Cokin ND and ND Grad filters,
Lowepro Mini Trekker AW

LOG IN TO REPLY
nitsch
Goldmember
Joined Feb 2005
2,393 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Hi Slicendice, I had written a fairly long post for you but I messed something up in IE and lost it all!!! :evil: :rolleyes: :lol:

Seeing as it's late I haven't the energy to write it all again so here is a summary which hopefully tells you all you need to know!

The DO wins hands down on portablity, the 100-400 is quite a chunky beast - I definately notice the extra size/weight in my backpack.

Build quality - nothing to choose between the two, both are beautifully made and very solid with metal bodies.

Image quality - at 400mm the 100-400 is fractionally sharper than the DO is at 300mm, there is hardly anything in it though, both are very good. The 100-400 gets a bit sharper as you back away from 400mm so it has the edge over the DO in the overlapping focal lengths. The DO has the advantage of going to 70mm on the wide end - 70mm versus 100mm doesn't sound much but it can be useful.

IS - The DO has second gen IS which is noticeabley more effective than the 1st gen IS on the 100-400 (it still works well though and is worth having).

Focusing - Both focus very quickly, quietly and accurately however the 100-400 seems to hunt more than the DO in low light.

Zoooom - I actually really like the 'controversial' push pull zoom on the 100-400, it works really well and is the ideal mechanism for a lens with this focal length. The zoom ring on the 70-300 is very heavy - you really feel like you are shifting some serious chunks of glass about!

I am already in love with the 100-400 after just 24 hours but I think it is going to have a slightly longer learning curve than any other lens I have previously owned to get the best out of it. I got the 100-400 purely for the extra length as I want to do more wildlife shooting. The DO has gone to a new home but I really wanted to be able to keep it too.

Both lenses are great, the 100-400 has the optical edge but you pay the price in size and weight. I would say on balance if you don't need the extra mm's above 300mm then definately go for the 70-300 DO it's just far more practical for everyday use, only get the 100-400 if you need that extra range. Remember that all of this is just my opinion and is based on just the one copy of each lens that I have owned, if you try them both for yourself you may decide differently so I would recommend you do this before making your decision.

Hope this helps! :D

Post #4, Oct 22, 2005 17:58:05




LOG IN TO REPLY
slicendice
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Feb 2005
461 posts
Manchester, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

Thanks Nick....some v helpful information there!I shall have to check my plastic and see how generous it feels...! ;)

If you have any pics from your new 100-400 I'd love to see

Post #5, Oct 25, 2005 16:11:32


Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy

Canon EOS 40D, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 17-55 2.8, Tamron 28-75 F2.8, Canon 580EX
Cokin ND and ND Grad filters,
Lowepro Mini Trekker AW

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
nitsch
Goldmember
Joined Feb 2005
2,393 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

No worries Slicendice, glad some of it was useful. :)

There's some of my first shots with the 100-400 here : http://www.photography​-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=107515 .

Post #6, Oct 25, 2005 16:23:22




LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricko ­ of ­ Fla
Senior Member
Joined Aug 2005
596 posts
Central Fla near Leesburg 1 hr from Orlando
[MORE/SHARE]

My next lens with be a 100-400 L can not wait. X mas is coming
Ricko

Post #7, Oct 25, 2005 17:03:02


Smell the Roses and do not forget to shoot the Roses as you go through life. Slow down America and enjoy life :p
5 D II 20D- 300 L f4 400 L f5.6 70-200 L 2.8 24-70 L 16-35, Canon G11

LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
grego's Avatar
Joined May 2005
8,819 posts
UCLA
[MORE/SHARE]

It's not just that the lens is an L, and that's why its better, Canon has done a really horrible job with the 70,75-300 focal length. Although people do like the 70-300 DO because its light. Its about the only one from those like 5 lens that people really like.

But if you need that 200-400 focal length badly, go for the 100-400. If you think you'll do a lot of under 200, you should go with the Sigma 70-200 2.8, Canon 70-200 2.8, Canon 70-200 f/4

Post #8, Oct 25, 2005 19:03:24


Go UCLAexternal link!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.comexternal linkSportsShooterexternal link|Flickrexternal link|

LOG IN TO REPLY
slicendice
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Feb 2005
461 posts
Manchester, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

nitsch wrote:
No worries Slicendice, glad some of it was useful. :)

There's some of my first shots with the 100-400 here : http://www.photography​-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=107515 .

WOW!! Now that is one sweet lens!!

Oh dear....I feel some imminent credit card melt-down heading this way! ;)

Post #9, Oct 26, 2005 05:32:19 as a reply to nitsch's post 13 hours earlier.


Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy

Canon EOS 40D, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 17-55 2.8, Tamron 28-75 F2.8, Canon 580EX
Cokin ND and ND Grad filters,
Lowepro Mini Trekker AW

LOG IN TO REPLY
ron ­ chappel
Cream of the Crop
Honorary Moderator
ron chappel's Avatar
Joined Sep 2003
3,554 posts
Qld ,Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

nitsch wrote:
Hi Slicendice, I had written a fairly long post for you but I messed something up in IE and lost it all!!! :evil: :rolleyes: :lol:

Man i feel for you!Isn't it one of lifes most irritating moments?
Thanks for the review!:)

Post #10, Oct 26, 2005 09:33:04 as a reply to nitsch's post 3 days earlier.




LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
1,536 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 70-300 vs Canon 100-400
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00126 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.01s
946 guests, 882 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is alexgr

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.