70-300L vs. 100-400...Landscape shooter, incidental wildlife

Hi everyone -

I'm mostly a landscape shooter although I've been dabbling in some people shots since my kids were born. I currently have a 5DII, 24 TS-e II, 24-70 II and 135L but I've been thinking about adding a telephoto lens for longer landscape shots and "incidental" wildlife encounters while I'm out hiking (not serious wildlife work). Ive been considering the options below:

-Add a 7D and a 70-300 to have as my go-to telephoto setup...the FOV from this combination should be more than enough for my needs. Benefit of this is I feel the 70-300L is also capable of creating landscapes on my 5DII that are suitable for printing large where I feel the 100-400 might be lacking. Another benefit is that my 135L takes on another FOV on the 7D that could be used for kids sports/indoor events as they get older. Finally, a two camera setup is something I've never had and it might be interesting.

-Upgrade 5DII to 5DIII and add the 100-400. Benefit of this is the extra length approximates the 7D/70-300L FOV plus I get the AF of the 5DIII. I've been finding the AF points of my 5DII too few and too unreliable in many situations lately and I'd appreciate an upgrade in this department. I've not much interest in the increased high ISO performance, however.

Seems like I get more bang for my buck out of the first option but I thought I'd pose it to the group for input.

Thanks!

MNUplander wrote in post #15837247
Hi everyone -

I'm mostly a landscape shooter although I've been dabbling in some people shots since my kids were born. I currently have a 5DII, 24 TS-e II, 24-70 II and 135L but I've been thinking about adding a telephoto lens for longer landscape shots and "incidental" wildlife encounters while I'm out hiking (not serious wildlife work). Ive been considering the options below:

-Add a 7D and a 70-300 to have as my go-to telephoto setup...the FOV from this combination should be more than enough for my needs. Benefit of this is I feel the 70-300L is also capable of creating landscapes on my 5DII that are suitable for printing large where I feel the 100-400 might be lacking. Another benefit is that my 135L takes on another FOV on the 7D that could be used for kids sports/indoor events as they get older. Finally, a two camera setup is something I've never had and it might be interesting.

-Upgrade 5DII to 5DIII and add the 100-400. Benefit of this is the extra length approximates the 7D/70-300L FOV plus I get the AF of the 5DIII. I've been finding the AF points of my 5DII too few and too unreliable in many situations lately and I'd appreciate an upgrade in this department. I've not much interest in the increased high ISO performance, however.

Seems like I get more bang for my buck out of the first option but I thought I'd pose it to the group for input.

Thanks!

I own the 5d3 and 40d as well as the 70-300L and 100-400L. the 40d is a back-up. dust collector.

if you decide to go with the 5d3, and I would highly recommend it, I would not want the 100-400L as my only long zoom.

what I would do is get the 5d3 and 70-300L and take it from there. you may decide you want 400mm. you may not.

I have a feeling I'm going to want longer than 300mm on full frame but I'm drawn to the 70-300L much more than I am to the 100-400. But, maybe what I should do is just add the 70-300 without changing camera bodies for a while and make my body upgrade decision on whether or not I keep bumping into the long end of the 70-300.

Any other thoughts?

Thanks!

I am 100% in the 100-400mm camp.
It's been my go to wildlife zoom for about a decade now, and I would not be without it.
I've had and sold a few xx-300mm and xx-200mm zooms, and they have never lasted long.

Wildlife = longest lens you can afford. 100-400.

What do you guys think about the push/pull mechanism with the 100-400? I've never used one and it is a bit intimidating...

+1 for the 100-400

100-400 would be my recommendation, as well. You'll want all the reach you can get for those incidental wildlife shots and it doesn't acquit itself too terribly when pressed into landscape scenery, either.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/7819​506608/

The 70-300L is a much later lens design than the 100-400L and should have better IQ and IS. I have the 70-300L and am extremely pleased with. Admittedly I've only used (borrowed) the 100-400L. It not bad, but I feel like I'm playing a trombone. It's a beast. The 70-300L is fairly compact.

My vote also goes to the 100-400L. Yes, it is an older design and I have had it for years, but it is my go-to lens 90% of the time.

Julius

the 100-400 is a fine lens, but damn heavy. If you want a lighter setup, go for the 70-300.

^^^^

Thanks for the replies, tough decision...I really wish there was a newer version of the 100-400L but I think I need to try both the 70-300L and the 100-400L and go with the one that feels better.

I'm sure the 70-300L is a great lens. But if you need to get to 400 on a zoom, the 100-400 beats it everytime!

I find (for me) that 100-400 isn't always long enough, the short end is fine. So, the thought of going full frame would be like a down grade.

MNUplander wrote in post #15838908
I have a feeling I'm going to want longer than 300mm on full frame but I'm drawn to the 70-300L much more than I am to the 100-400. But, maybe what I should do is just add the 70-300 without changing camera bodies for a while and make my body upgrade decision on whether or not I keep bumping into the long end of the 70-300.

Any other thoughts?

Thanks!

maybe you can hold out for the 5D4/3D and it will have higher MP count and reach getting closer to the 7D? Depends how badly you want to move away from the 5D2 now. For landscapes alone the 5D3 isn't much any better than the 5D2 at all (other than hand held at very high ISO).

since you sound to be 90% landscape and 10% wildlife I'd favor the 70-300L for awesome image quality and the VERY important 70-100mm range! I find having 70mm on it lets it really work as a fine landscape lens on FF while starting at 100mm is a lot more limiting, it is so often jsut not quite wide enough. And it's so much lighter and more compact for hiking/travel.

if you did 90% wildlife then 100-400 for sure since even 400mm is short

That's a great shot, Eric!