70-300 L or 100-400 L?

KayakPhotos wrote in post #14664690
I would think that the 70-200 with a 1.4x tc would make more sense as a replacement of the 70-300l. I think that's probably why the 70-300l doesn't get as much love, since a lot of people use tc's on their 70-200's already.

I am quite pleased with the results using my 70-200/2.8L IS II with a 1.4X II. The AF is fast enough and it is like having two lenses (for much less $ and more less space in my bag) with me that I can use. I have tried the 2.0X II with my 70-200 and felt that the AF was a bit too slow for my needs. For me (since I already have the 70-200/2.8ISii and 1.4X), I don't see the need for me to get a 70-300L. The next time I have a trip/need that requires the extra length though, I may take a look at the 100-400L. I have a good friend that shoots alot of wildlife and he loves his 100-400L.

Thanks a lot Daniel
and Mr B for the info
i will stay with the 100-400
when i search on Flickr
i saw so many photos from the 100-400
and less from the 70-300L
that means
people likes the 100-400
thanks again

No problem. I think you'll be happy with your decision.

moltengold wrote in post #14664925
Thanks a lot Daniel
and Mr B for the info
i will stay with the 100-400
when i search on Flickr
i saw so many photos from the 100-400
and less from the 70-300L
that means
people likes the 100-400
thanks again

Or it may be that the 70-300L is only about two years old. The 100-400L has been around since the late 1990s, I believe.

The 70-200II with a 2xIII is a very competent combo. I liked the IQ better than the 100-400. Only reason I sold it was I got tired of lugging the weight around.

moltengold wrote in post #14664420
its hard to decide which of them shoud leave my bag
this photo i took with the 70-300L
its act like a macro lens and this inside the house very sharp

Forget what the marketing label says and read it as "close focus", by no means the native magnification of any of these teles is in the macro range.

sambarino wrote in post #14664991
Or it may be that the 70-300L is only about two years old. The 100-400L has been around since the late 1990s, I believe.

sure
thats right its a new lens

alann wrote in post #14665428
The 70-200II with a 2xIII is a very competent combo. I liked the IQ better than the 100-400. Only reason I sold it was I got tired of lugging the weight around.

yes
i went to the canon shop and made a test of that combo
i felt that i want to sell some other of my lenses and get them right now
this lens like a magic crazy sharp

Techuser wrote in post #14665743
Forget what the marketing label says and read it as "close focus", by no means the native magnification of any of these teles is in the macro range.

Thanks a lot
you are right