Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 01 Apr 2012 (Sunday) 09:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

100-400 or the 70-300 ?

 
nathanPhoto
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Apr 01, 2012 09:08 |  #1

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 ?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Sorarse
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Kent, UK
     
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

http://www.scarecrowim​ages.com (external link)
Canon PowerShot G2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dsteve
Member
124 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
     
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. ;)

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.


5D Mark III | 7D | 30D | 10D | D30
10-22 | 16-35L | 35L | 24-105L | 24-70F2.8L II | 70-200F4L IS | 100-400L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brendo666
Goldmember
Avatar
1,538 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Renton, WA
     
Apr 01, 2012 10:39 |  #4

dsteve wrote in post #14190623 (external link)
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

I too have been searching for something longer, and I am leaning towards the 100-400, as it can be had for about $1200 used.


-Brendan B.
Graphic Designer | Photographer
5D III | 5D III | Σ 35 1.4 Art | 35 1.4L | 85 1.8 | 100 2.8L | 135 2L
Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dsteve
Member
124 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
     
Apr 01, 2012 10:43 |  #5

Brendo666 wrote in post #14190661 (external link)
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
10-22 | 16-35L | 35L | 24-105L | 24-70F2.8L II | 70-200F4L IS | 100-400L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MPCman
Senior Member
858 posts
Likes: 22
Joined May 2008
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
     
Apr 01, 2012 10:53 |  #6

The 100-400 has:
+ included tripod collar
+ 400mm
+/- push pull zoom -> allows to zoom very fast, but some people dislike it
- older generation IS (2-3 stops?)

The 70-300 has:
+ is supposed to have better IQ
+ latest generation IS (3-4 stops? + other advantages)
+ smaller size and weight (but still significant)
+ better weather sealing
+/- rotating zoom, less fast but some prefer it
- no included tripod collar

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.


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
Avatar
1,538 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Renton, WA
     
Apr 01, 2012 11:07 |  #7

dsteve wrote in post #14190674 (external link)
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.
Graphic Designer | Photographer
5D III | 5D III | Σ 35 1.4 Art | 35 1.4L | 85 1.8 | 100 2.8L | 135 2L
Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shadowcat
Senior Member
Avatar
855 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Elyria,Ohio
     
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.

Personally I found that a 70-200 2.8L with a 1.4x and 2x is the best option just my opinion.


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
my photo's http://s335.photobucke​t.com/albums/m476/oneb​adkitty1969/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathanPhoto
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
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
     
Apr 01, 2012 18:04 |  #10

MPCman wrote in post #14190730 (external link)
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
3,499 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Australia
     
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
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,620 posts
Gallery: 53 photos
Likes: 538
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
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 (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
effstop
Senior Member
810 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
     
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
     
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
     
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.

If you want fast focusing and sharper pics, a lens without a converter is the best option.

I have not had my 100-400 for long but find that I use the 400mm often. I do shoot soccer and baseball though.

What will you be using the lens for? The extra 100mm could come in handy for outdoor sports or widlife.


G16
OMD-10 (absolutely love this little devil)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,857 views & 0 likes for this thread
100-400 or the 70-300 ?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Sofun111
856 guests, 202 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.