70-300 L or 100-400 L?

Looking at these two lenses as the AF speed on the 55-250 is just so slow. I've used a 100-400 for an airshow before and it was amazing, but I am worried that I won't have a lot of uses for it other than once or twice a year, while the 70-300 seems to have a more practical focal length, plus it is smaller and a newer lens. Has anyone here used both, or one of them and has any insight? Just curious what people think about one vs. the other.

Keyan wrote in post #14653515
Looking at these two lenses as the AF speed on the 55-250 is just so slow. I've used a 100-400 for an airshow before and it was amazing, but I am worried that I won't have a lot of uses for it other than once or twice a year, while the 70-300 seems to have a more practical focal length, plus it is smaller and a newer lens. Has anyone here used both, or one of them and has any insight? Just curious what people think about one vs. the other.

So you're saying that the 70-100mm range will be more practical than 300 - 400mm range. That may be true for you, but it hasn't been my experience. The 100-400 is fantastic for shooting birds, flowers, butterflies, dragonflies, bees, and I even use it for portraits and landscapes at times. I took this shot of one of my grandsons while we were on a small pontoon boat.

Does one perform better than the other in terms of IQ and/or focus speed/accuracy?

The IS on ht e70-300 is awesome - smokes the 100-400. However, 300 is a little short for me and my uses. But that lens is awesome.

Keyan wrote in post #14653684
Does one perform better than the other in terms of IQ and/or focus speed/accuracy?

I haven't had issues with any of those while using the 100-400, so it really is about the focal length.

huntersdad wrote in post #14653691
The IS on ht e70-300 is awesome - smokes the 100-400. However, 300 is a little short for me and my uses. But that lens is awesome.

I haven't used the 70-300L, but took this with the 100-400 handheld before sun up at 1/30s.
1/30s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso400

Keyan wrote in post #14653515
Looking at these two lenses as the AF speed on the 55-250 is just so slow. I've used a 100-400 for an airshow before and it was amazing, but I am worried that I won't have a lot of uses for it other than once or twice a year, while the 70-300 seems to have a more practical focal length, plus it is smaller and a newer lens. Has anyone here used both, or one of them and has any insight? Just curious what people think about one vs. the other.

I agree with the others, the 100-400 may be better if you shoot wildlife, sports, airshows, etc.

XSi (450D)
100-400
400mm
(cropped)

I personally hate the new 70-300 L... but that said, it has the new focus algorithms and is a very fast focusing lens. It really comes down to do you want to use the 70-100 space more, or the 300-400 space more. Everyone gets that the 100-400 can produce some relative sharp images. No need of shots to prove that since anything posted on here will not be relevant except from compress small size images, where even the worst lens can be made to look good.

Check out photo zone.de and they have reviews of the lenses there. It is probably a lot more objective than you will get here with people defending their existing purchases.... which are all correct, because they were the right lens for them.... if that makes any sense. Also read the reviews on Lensrentals.com. They actually have some good insight on how the lenses are best.

Good luck and either way, I think you will be more than happy.

The 100-400L i use all the time and almost always have myself shooting between the 200-400mm range. Not using my 70-200 nearly as much lately unless its an indoor gig.

I have both the 70-300L and the 100-400L. Both are sharp. The IS is better on the 70-300. The 100-400 is much larger and heavier. I still have a hard time with the push -pull zoom. And I tend to bump the focusing ring on the 100-400. So my preference is usually the 70-300, but sometimes the 400 reach is really needed. If portability is an issue, definitely the 70-300.

I had the 100-300 and always wanted more focal length. With the 100-400 I still want for more focal length. So with my style, going to the 70-300L would be going backwards, the updated IS and more compact body would be sweet though. Good luck with your choice.

Roger

I bought the 100-400L because I wanted the IQ at 400, AND the versatility of a zoom. As others have mentioned, sometimes you still need/want more. Considered the 70-300L because of reviewed better IQ and much better IS. For my use FL was more important than IS. BTW, the 100-400L focuses faster with the IS shut off. Maybe all IS lenses do, I don't know.

I had both. Kept the 70-300L. I like the light weight, fast focus and weatherproofing. I have had no problems with cropping an image so don't really miss the 400.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

those are very good photos Alann.

I wonder how the 70-300 does cropped against a 100-400 cropped.

A 400 can shoot 100mm farther and be cropped.
but if the 400 is softer it wont do any good.

interesting.
I would love to do a side by side with my 100-400 and a 70-300. I get sharp images with mine though so I dont know how a 70-300 would do.

I have never shot a 70-300L. I had the 70-300 IS USM (non-L) and sold it because it was very weak wide open at anything longer than 250mm or so. I replaced it with the 100-400L and am very happy with the results. The 100-400L is sharper at 400mm f/5.6 than the 70-300 non-L was at 300mm and f/8. I will admit that the IS is not really good, 1 to 2 stops, at best. I have never compared it to the 70-300L.