Lens change-up second guessing

Hey there,

I have been saving up for another lens, and now that I am about to start shopping around, I'm second guessing myself something fierce. I currently have a 70-300 non-L IS lens that is pretty soft at 300 (as they tend to be) and was looking at an upgrade. My options are:

1) 70-300 L IS
2) 100-400 L IS
3) 300/4 L IS (with 1.4x)

I looked at how I shot with my current lens, and about 50% of the shots with that lens are at 300mm, 25% are at 70mm, and the remaining 25% are scattered along the rest of the zoom range. Until I did that, I had been convinced to grab a 100-400, but I do shoot at the wide end more than I had previously thought.

My current 70-300 non-L tends to be my hiking in the mountains, air show, graduation and other event lens when I need reach (hence the thought to jump up to the 100-400), but hiking in the mountains makes me wonder if the extra weight (and weaker IS) of the 100-400 lens will be a drawback compared to the lighter options.

Since about half of my shots are at the weakest spot of my current lens, any upgrade will need to give me sharpness at 300 (or beyond) to be worth it to me. I tend to shoot primes for the majority of my shooting, but zooms have always been more convenient than trying to swap out lenses while on the move. However, the 300/4+1.4x is still on my list of options.

I also have an Alaska cruise coming up this summer to throw into the mix...

What are your thoughts?

the 70-300L is extremely sharp throughout the range, and its IS is stellar. It's also considerably smaller, more compact and lighter than the 100-400, which may be important since you hike. From what you say, it sounds like a great choice for you.

I rented one last year and was blown away by the quality of the images it produces. It's been on my wish list ever since.

The 100-400 is a beast to lug around. HOWEVER...if half the time you shoot your 70-300 at 300, I'm going to guess that some of those times you wish you had more reach...I suspect you may find the extra 100mm on the Dust Pump useful...

The 70-300L beats the 100-400L in every way except for one very important feature -- reach. I would look at the 50% of your shots that were taken at 300mm with your existing lens and decide how many of them could have benefited from additional focal length. If it is a significant number, then consider the 100-400L. If it's a small number, then the 70-300L is probably the better choice.

Personally, I prefer the 100-400L, as this is my main wildlife lens, and I want all the reach I can afford.

I agree with Scott M. I have the 100-400, because it is the best long lens I can afford. I would like MORE focal length, frequently. I am sure the 70-300L is nice. It ain't 400mm.

I'll go along with the others, if you need 400mm the 100-400 is the way to go

List out the pros and cons of each and see which which list is more appealing. The 100-400 is not a good hiking lens due to the weight and size. That said, I have the 100-400L rather than the 70-300L since the reach is the most important thing to me.

That is good advice, and everything is a compromise.

70-300 L pros
smaller & lighter than 100-400
Better IS (I don't tend to take a regular tripod hiking)
I do shoot about 25% of my shots at 70mm

70-300 L cons
not 400mm
feels silly to replace a 70-300 with another 70-300 (even if it is an L)

100-400 pros
400mm

100-400 cons
heavier
dated IS
I haven't tried push/pull, but I would probably get used to it

300/4, 1.4x pros
faster glass
I tend to shoot primes for my day-to-day stuff

300/4, 1.4x cons
I need a travel lens, sports lens
inconvenience of swapping tc in/out while on the move (hiking)
300 is really long indoors (and 1 stop faster outdoors isn't a game changer)
dated IS

All of these options are sharper at 300 than my current lens. All of them are larger and heavier (some more so than others). All are in my price range.

Your zoom range percentages are probably very close to mine with the Sigma 120-300mm OS + 2X TC, except I tend to use it only at 600 (equivalent, roughly) or 240. Yes, wildlife (birds though) on a 7D. Reach is always good.

Downside: the lens really is heavy to carry around or even hold steady (though I manage it). Blur quality is so-so sometimes, but not usually a big problem for photos.

I don't know how much you have available, but the original Sigma is still around $2700. Add in $500 or so, maybe, for the 2X TC. That is way beyond your likely budget, but also way beyond the capability for distance shots of any lens shown here, and you even gain some latitude in low-light capability (take the TC off for constant f/2.8, or enjoy 5.6 @ 600mm instead of f/6.3 or whatever the 400mm end of the consumer telezooms comes to).

Just something to consider. I will say that I was very happy to trade up from 120-400mm to 120-300mm plus a TC.

lazer-jock wrote in post #15865244
70-300 L pros
smaller & lighter than 100-400
Better IS (I don't tend to take a regular tripod hiking)
I do shoot about 25% of my shots at 70mm

70-300 L cons
not 400mm
feels silly to replace a 70-300 with another 70-300 (even if it is an L)

.

Don't feel silly if this is what you decide to do. The L and non-L versions have absolutely nothing in common apart from focal length. The L version is in a different universe in every other respect.

You mentioned a cruse in Alaska.

I go to Alaska every summer. For me, Alaska = 400mm and longer would be better. I love my 100 - 400.

The other option to think about is to keep what you have for now, rent a 100 - 400 or one of you other choices and try it out, then decide what you really want after some hands on experience.

I had thought about renting. I have three trips this summer (the cruise to Alaska being one of them) that would benefit from the change-up. If I buy used, I shouldn't take too much of a hit if I decide to resell it. I have arranged to borrow the 300/4+1.4 combo soon to try it out, but I think that is the lowest on my list.

I was strongly leaning towards the 70-300 L until I saw this and this comparison. Is there really that little difference between the L and non-L lens? The first time that I looked at it, I left it on the default of 1Ds, but when I switched it to a 60D (more comparable sensor to my 7D), the difference became much less pronounced. The first link goes to 70mm wide open on a 60D and the second (strongest difference) is at 300mm wide open. With all of the raves of how the two lenses are not even in the same ballpark of each other, is the red ring blinding people or am I missing something?

I say go with the prime and the teleconverter.

lazer-jock wrote in post #15907225
I was strongly leaning towards the 70-300 L until I saw this and this comparison. Is there really that little difference between the L and non-L lens? The first time that I looked at it, I left it on the default of 1Ds, but when I switched it to a 60D (more comparable sensor to my 7D), the difference became much less pronounced. The first link goes to 70mm wide open on a 60D and the second (strongest difference) is at 300mm wide open. With all of the raves of how the two lenses are not even in the same ballpark of each other, is the red ring blinding people or am I missing something?

I used to own the 70-300 non-L, and rented the L version for a week. Believe me, they are worlds apart. The IS system and focusing speed of the L are in a totally different league. If you're shooting in low light, or shooting something that moves, your keeper rate will be far, far better with the L, and your results will be noticeably different. The L is also extremely sharp throughout the range (my non-L was soft above 250 mm).

Maybe if you plan to use the lens to shoot lines on a sheet of paper, there wouldn't be too much difference. But in the real world, the only thing the two lenses have in common, IMHO, is the focal range. The L blows the non-L out of the water in every other respect.

I never particularly liked the 70-300 non-L (I much preferred the 55-250), and the L version was never really on my radar because of that. When I rented the L to try it out, I was prepared not to like it. However, after five minutes of using it on my 7D, I knew it would be going on my wish list.

If you're having doubts, why not rent the L to see what you think?