Canon 70-300mm L is usm or 100mm-400mm L is usm lens?

Hi,

I already own the canon 70 - 200mm F4 non is, which is a great lens. but I want more reach for wildlife and motorsports. I am considering buying the 70-300mm or the 100-400mm and will probably sell the 70mm - 200mm F4. The price difference on hdew cameras Is minimal. Also has anyone bought anything from them as their prices are very good.
Cheers

70-300L
small size ( good for the bag and travel )
new IS
sharp from 70 to 300 and good contrast
no tripod ring
not compatible with canon extenders
less focal length

100-400L
more reach
old IS
with tripod ring
compatible with canon extenders
heavier than the 70-300L
great focal length
both are great

and to be honest with you
your 70-200 f/4 non IS
is sharper than the 70-300L and the 100-400L
and every lens had her own taste

Just ask yourself this question - is 300mm long enough for my needs.

Yes? 70-300L

No? 100-400L

Simple.

I went through this same process recently. My much-loved 70-200 f4 IS was a bit short for much of what I do.

It comes down to a choice of portability or reach. Which is more important to you: having a lens that's easy to carry but offers slightly less reach (70-300) or having a larger, bulkier lens that offers more reach (100-400)? There's also the question of how useful you find the 70-100 range, and how important IS is to you.

In my case, I wanted a lens that's not too bulky, with a fairly versatile focal range and good IS. So I chose the 70-300. It's an outstanding lens, extremely sharp throughout the range, with killer IS. I'll be using it mainly for outdoor sports and backyard/beach birds, and some portrait work. If you can live with the reach, you will not be disappointed in this lens; it's awesome. But if you're buying primarily to get extra reach and don't mind the additional bulk, then the 100-400 is probably a better choice.

The 70-300L, with it's newer optics and IS system, is a better lens than the 100-400L in every way except for one very, very important way -- reach. As others have said, if you can get by with 300mm than the 70-300L is an excellent lens. However, you mention it will be primarily a wildlife lens. In that case, reach is very important, and the 100-400L is considered a fine lens for this use in this price range.

I own the 100-400L, and would never consider trading it for the 70-300L. I use it almost exclusively for wildlife and zoo trips, though, and have a 70-200 f/4 IS for more general purpose telephoto use. For true wildlife, it usually resides on a 7D, and for the zoo trips I use it in combination with a 5D3. It's focal range, image quality and AF performance on both bodies makes it a really versatile lens for those purposes.

Will you be using it on the long end of the range most of the time? Then the 100-400. Despite its duplicating the range of a couple of fine general purpose tele lenses its real strength is on the long end. If 300 is enough, and you intend to use it a lot at 70-300 then thats a better option.

How is 70-200 f/4 Is compared with 70-300L in the range 70-200, IQ wise?

I don't mean to hijack this thread.

l89kip wrote in post #16653105
How is 70-200 f/4 Is compared with 70-300L in the range 70-200, IQ wise?

I don't mean to hijack this thread.

Until the 70-200 2.8 IS II came out the F4 IS version was canon's sharpest zoom. I havent used a 70-300L so I dont have any first hand knowlege but I cant imagine its any sharper. There are lots of sites that compare sharpness but I tend to take some of their tests with a grain of salt.

l89kip wrote in post #16653105
How is 70-200 f/4 Is compared with 70-300L in the range 70-200, IQ wise?

I used to own the 70-200 f4 IS, and recently sold it to get the 70-300L.

The 70-300L is absolutely comparable to the f4 IS. It's sharp throughout the range, and the IS system is better IMHO.

It was a very tough choice for me to sell my f4 IS, but I don't regret the decision. The 70-300L is an outstanding lens.

Thanks for the information. My copy of 70-200 is the first L lens that I bought new and is very sharp. I went back and found that my 70-200 and 17-55 have the most keepers. That was the time I only had crop body. Now I have a FF body, its reach is limited. Not sure what to do yet. Pondering several options, including 70-300L, 100-400, 400F/5.6.

l89kip wrote in post #16653187
Thanks for the information. My copy of 70-200 is the first L lens that I bought new and is very sharp. I went back and found that my 70-200 and 17-55 have the most keepers. That was the time I only had crop body. Now I have a FF body, its reach is limited. Not sure what to do yet. Pondering several options, including 70-300L, 100-400, 400F/5.6.

If the 100-400 is a candidate, dont forget to look at the new tamron 150-600. Its supposedly getting great reviews and could be a category changer. I love my 100-400 and I got it at a price I couldnt turn down, but its old IS and push pull zoom are a bit of a throwback. Its really time for canon to update their offering in this class before someone steals it from them.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …150-600-telezoom-shootout

Tarmon 150-600: definitely will take a look at it. B&H has it pre-order now. I will wait out to see reviews and comments about it.

To be honest, I have tried to stay with Canon so far. The only non-Canon lens I bought is a copy of Tokina 11-16, which I sold locally two month ago. That is an excellent copy. So given a choice, I will try non-Canon lenses.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16653217
http://www.lensrentals​.com …150-600-telezoom-shootout

Wow, thanks!