Looking at long zooms, just wondered which is the better lens the 100-400 or the 70-300?
Both F 4 / 5.6 and is ?
nathanPhoto Hatchling 4 posts Joined Jun 2008 More info | Apr 01, 2012 09:08 | #1 Looking at long zooms, just wondered which is the better lens the 100-400 or the 70-300?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sorarse Goldmember ![]() 2,193 posts Likes: 24 Joined Jan 2008 Location: Kent, UK More info | Apr 01, 2012 09:47 | #2 I have the 100-400 and have no complaints at all. When looking at a long lens, the options I was looking at were the 100-400 and a 400 prime. Didn't even consider the 70-300. At the beginning of time there was absolutely nothing. And then it exploded! Terry Pratchett
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dsteve Member 124 posts Joined Mar 2012 Location: SF Bay Area More info | Apr 01, 2012 10:28 | #3 Snide answer with some truth: the 70-300 is better from 70-99 and the 100-400 is better above 300. 5D Mark III | 7D | 30D | 10D | D30
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Brendo666 Goldmember ![]() 1,538 posts Likes: 4 Joined Dec 2010 Location: Renton, WA More info | Apr 01, 2012 10:39 | #4 dsteve wrote in post #14190623 ![]() Snide answer with some truth: the 70-300 is better from 70-99 and the 100-400 is better above 300. ![]() I haven't used the 70-300 but if you go that route, maybe one of the 70-200 lenses with a 1.4x converter might be another option to evaluate. It's close to the same range (up to 280mm) and stays as fast or faster. Did you mean to say above 100? Because if not then that leaves a gap between 100-299 where no lens is better. Haha -Brendan B.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dsteve Member 124 posts Joined Mar 2012 Location: SF Bay Area More info | Apr 01, 2012 10:43 | #5 Brendo666 wrote in post #14190661 ![]() Did you mean to say above 100? Because if not then that leaves a gap between 100-299 where no lens is better. Haha Heh. No, I just didn't answer what's better between 100-300 because I don't know what's better in that range. I don't have the 70-300 or the experience to say 5D Mark III | 7D | 30D | 10D | D30
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MPCman Senior Member 858 posts Likes: 22 Joined May 2008 Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands More info | Apr 01, 2012 10:53 | #6 The 100-400 has: 7D, EOS-M, 100-400 L, 15-85, Tokina 11-16 2.8, EF-M 11-22, 55-200
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Brendo666 Goldmember ![]() 1,538 posts Likes: 4 Joined Dec 2010 Location: Renton, WA More info | Apr 01, 2012 11:07 | #7 dsteve wrote in post #14190674 ![]() Heh. No, I just didn't answer what's better between 100-300 because I don't know what's better in that range. I don't have the 70-300 or the experience to say ![]() haha, that works then. -Brendan B.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
shadowcat Senior Member ![]() 855 posts Joined Apr 2005 Location: Elyria,Ohio More info | Apr 01, 2012 14:09 | #8 I had the 100-400 it's ok if you got allot of light but I absolutely hated the push pull zoom it allows allot of dust to get inside and gets hard to hold if you constantly have it out at 400mm. The 70-300L is newer in every aspect but it's not really any better in low light it has newer IS, newer coatings on the glass, I think lighter weight materials, and better glass as far as I know. Canon 5D MK2 with grip,7D w/grip,G1x,300mm 2.8is, 35 1.4L, 24-70 2.8II, 85 1.8, 70-200L 2.8 is, 100L macro, 2x& 1.4 tele, canon pro9000 printer, 600ex-rt,580ex 2 flash, macro flash
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 01, 2012 17:36 | #9 Thanks for the help guys. Think it may be the 70-300.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
watt100 Cream of the Crop 14,021 posts Likes: 29 Joined Jun 2008 More info | Apr 01, 2012 18:04 | #10 MPCman wrote in post #14190730 ![]() T As you see both have their (dis)advantages. It really depends on your preference and what you will use it for. The 70-300 has some advantages, but I end up shooting at 400mm most of the time so I would not let go my 100-400 for it. I also like having 400mm !
LOG IN TO REPLY |
phreeky Goldmember 3,514 posts Likes: 15 Joined Oct 2007 Location: Australia More info | Apr 01, 2012 19:20 | #11 If you'll be using at the shorter focal lengths much, keep in mind the 70-300 is a faster lens at those lengths.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 01, 2012 19:26 | #12 The 70-300 is great if size is a factor. It's pretty compact considering the range and quality. Most people who rip it have never tried it. It's a great lens. Website
LOG IN TO REPLY |
effstop Senior Member 810 posts Joined Nov 2007 Location: San Diego More info | Apr 01, 2012 22:56 | #13 I haven't used the 70-300 but I had consistent great results with the 100-400mm. If you need the reach go for the 100-400 but the 70-200 w/1.4 telecon would be a more versatile option if you don't need the reach. 5D MKI | 1D MKII | 24-70mm 2.8 L | 80-200MM 2.8 L | 400mm 5.6 L |50mm 1.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
hugues Member 59 posts Likes: 1 Joined Mar 2012 Location: Europe More info | Apr 01, 2012 23:59 | #14 28-300 L IS
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DL Photo Senior Member 577 posts Joined Apr 2010 Location: Richmond, BC, Canada More info | Apr 02, 2012 00:27 | #15 I have the 70-200 IS and had a 1.4x converter. There is a definite loss in IQ and loss in AF when adding the 1.4x converter. It will be even more so with the 2x converter. G16
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
Latest registered member is May*Gem5 848 guests, 286 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |