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

I love my canon L lenses too, but the 3rd party manufacturers are beginning to innovate rather than just make inferior copies of canon lenses. The sigma art primes are excellent and now tamron is reinventing the tele zoom for those of us who cant drop major $$$ on a set of long primes.

Tamron looks nice but its over 4 pounds. I know with telephoto you have to expect that but the 400L is so light and I think with a 5d3 you can autofocus with the 1.4. I'm tempted to go that route for extra reach. But if I was buying today the Tamron would be hard to pass up. Almost looks to good to be true.

The 70-300L is outstanding. Every bit as good as any 70-200L. Down side is the variable aperture but if size is an issue its a great choice.

Found this review. He compares the Tamron to the 70-300L
http://dustinabbott.ne​t …-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-review/

vp325 wrote in post #16652124
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

If you want reach, then I would suggest the 100-400L is the way to go. From what I have seen in the forums the new Tamron 150-600 is also an option, you get more reach but the sharpness may not be quite as good, although it does seem to turn out decent results.

I have used the 100-400L for several years, often for wildlife and motorsports, and still find that I could use more reach quite often. I now also carry a 300 f/2.8L with TCs and that gives me a handy 600 f/5.6 with the 2x TC on it. Even then, sometimes the reach isn't enough.

I suspect that you would find the 70-300L not long enough.

As for HDEW, they are a good company with a good reputation. I have seen many, many comments from happy customers and can't remember ever seeing a comment from somebody who wasn't happy with them. I bought my 5D3 from them and I am very much in the happy camp. Just bear in mind that they sell grey imports, but back them up with a very good third party warranty (which as I understand it uses Canon service centres in the UK to do any work).

sandpiper wrote in post #16653279
If you want reach, then I would suggest the 100-400L is the way to go.

I have used the 100-400L for several years, often for wildlife and motorsports, and still find that I could use more reach quite often.

I agree, if you need longer focal lengths for wildlife and sports the 100-400 is a good choice for sharpness and image quality.

kin2son wrote in post #16652172
Just ask yourself this question - is 300mm long enough for my needs.

Yes? 70-300L

No? 100-400L

Simple.

This really sums it up nicely.

If you need longer than 400, there's always the 150-600.

For most wildlife I'd go the new 150-600 I think. The problem will be that you said you'd sell the 70-200 which leaves you with a rather large lens at 150-200mm and potentially a big gap depending on what other lenses you own.

Another option would be the keep the 70-200 and get a 400 F/5.6.

You should tell us what other lenses and body(ies) you own as it can sway things one way or another.

ceegee wrote in post #16652444
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.

This mirrors my experience and the process I've gone through. Love the 70-200, but it simply came down to having the extra reach combined with portability so I moved back to a 70-300. It is compatible with a Kenko 1.4 extender, however the price of entry is slow AF. Both lenses offer excellent results but as already has been stated, it comes down to how much reach the OP ultimately needs/wants.

Tommydigi wrote in post #16653255
Tamron looks nice but its over 4 pounds. I know with telephoto you have to expect that but the 400L is so light and I think with a 5d3 you can autofocus with the 1.4. I'm tempted to go that route for extra reach. But if I was buying today the Tamron would be hard to pass up. Almost looks to good to be true.

The Tamron is tempting to me, too, but the additional size and weight over my current 100-400L is a big concern. My current landscape + wildlife travel kit barely fits in a Lowepro Flipside 400AW, and I do not think the Tamron would fit if I swapped it for the 100-400L. A larger backpack would not fit as carry on baggage on some of the flights we take, either. Plus, that's another pound of weight on my back as we walk through the airports.

That additional 200mm of reach would be nice, though. Decisions, decisions.

On my 60D the 70-300L's reach was perfect. On my 6D, I sometimes wish I had more reach. Otherwise, the lens is profoundly great - marvelous colors, rock solid IS, and compact for travel. My buying decision was motivated in part by the size of the lens.

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

For all the flack the Canon 100-400 gets about the push pull zoom design, when you compare it with the Siggy and Tammy zoomed all the way out, it looks 21st century by comparison...jmo

Hi

Thanks all for you replies. I have looked at the tamron, but think I am going to keep the 70 200 and get the canon 100-400.

vp325 wrote in post #16659923
Hi

Thanks all for you replies. I have looked at the tamron, but think I am going to keep the 70 200 and get the canon 100-400.

Sounds like a winner!!!