70-300 L or 100-400 L?

i bought the 100-400L and sold it after one week like new
both of them heavy in weight
the 70-300L is new , short , weather sealed and sharp from 70 to 300
the 100-400 is old , long , soft images
the 70-300L is a great lens on the FF bodies

I prefer the lens EF-S 55-250 on the crop its a great lens for price and image quality

but sometimes im thinking to buy the 100-400 again for more reach than 300
i dont know

moltengold wrote in post #14655651
the 100-400 is old , long , soft images

Soft? Can't say I agree with that.

nellyle wrote in post #14655693
Soft? Can't say I agree with that.

Me, either.

jhayesvw wrote in post #14655038
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 never touched a 70-300L but I have a hint that the 70-300 non-L is sharper than the 100-400, so IQ wise I think the 70-300L has probably the best IQ between the two, it's however a lens I'd never get when the 300 F4 IS is at the same price range.

moltengold wrote in post #14655651
the 100-400 is old , long , soft images
quality

LOL !

even when I severely crop an image with the 100-400 it turns out sharp, and I only have 12 MPs !

XSi (450D)
Canon 100-400

this was taken with a 100-400 at about 300mm.

file sized is reduced to enable upload but it still looks pretty sharp, imo.

Bit of red fringing around the nose though

Here's one from me, wide open and at 400mm on only 8.2mp, still seems pretty sharp to me, get it?.....sharp.....

When determining whether to go with the 70-300L vs 100-400L I ended up with the 300 due to portability, IS and weatherproofing. That just fits the current needs.

While I use the 70-300 for airshows at this time and it does take good ones, I would like a longer lens for that, but figured with the 100-400 being a older lens (still good though) the new 200-400 was starting through the pipeline and I figured I should wait and see how that turns out.

Isn't the 200-400 rumoured to be quite a pricey lens?

nellyle wrote in post #14655752
Isn't the 200-400 rumoured to be quite a pricey lens?

extremely pricey. Canon rumours reckons about $7,500-8,000, so way out of the price range of a 70-300 or 100-400.

nellyle wrote in post #14655752
Isn't the 200-400 rumoured to be quite a pricey lens?

Possibly. Just checked Canon Rumors… speak of the devil, people are now requesting the next upgraded lens be the 100-400L and rumors say they will change it to a zoom ring instead of push pull, IS, weatherized… worth the wait?

That's a pity, I love the push pull zoom, very quick to use once used to it.

100-400 IS L - Is to good ?

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Both are great lenses, just trying to figure out for what I shoot which would be more useful, I just don't see me hauling out the 100-400 more than two or three times a year, while the 70-300 I would probably use more due to it being more portable... If I were traveling light(er) and only doing a two lens setup I would have a pretty decent gap from the 17-55 with the 100 vs the 70... Hmmm.