Time to move from the 70-300L to the 100-400L II

I haven't seen anything on Craigslist regarding the value of my used 70-300 which is in very good shape. A new one can be purchased for $1,150 net of a $100 rebate. Any thoughts on an appropriate discount from the new price, or price that I could get out of the used 70-300?

Willbeen wrote in post #17821923
I haven't seen anything on Craigslist regarding the value of my used 100-300 which is in very good shape. A new one can be purchased doe $1,150 net of a $100 rebate. Any thoughts n an appropriate discount from the new price, or price that I could get out of the used 100-300?

The first question: the title says 70-300L....your post says 100-300... two different lenses.

I'm assuming you have a 70-300L. I've seen them in pristine condition for $800. I paid $1500 for mine... I can't seem to convince myself to sell it. Our youngest son is using it at the moment.

I have the 70-300L and the new 100-400L II. Advantages to both. The 70-300 on my crop body is close to the 100-400 on my full frame for actual zoom range. The 70-300 is very noticeably lighter, shorter, more comfortable to carry and takes awesome photos. The 100-400 on my gripped 6D is better with stabilization, slightly better photos but normally not really noticeable difference for my type hobby usage. I really love both lenses. Originally I was going to sell the 70-300L to recoup some money but just can't part with it.

Guess I am saying if you can keep it for a while and still purchase the 100-400L II, you may end up like me and find uses for both. My wife dislikes the 100-400 due to weight and size but never takes the 70-300 off of her 60D.

Thank you for the feedback. Although I was of sober mind I clearly hadn't proofed my submission...kind of embarrassing. But it's now corrected.

I recognize the value of retaining both lenses due to their respective advantages, and they are both great lenses. But I've made the commitment to change to the 100-400, and someday pair it with a 1.4x...without having money tied up in both.

yes, I have both and I use the shorter zoom more often because it's much lighter and smaller perfect for landscape on FF. if I didn't shoot wildlife I probably would not own the 100-400 II

I'm the opposite, and rarely mount a 300mm when I have the 100-400mm on hand.

I use the 300F/2.8 on my crop for reach and I mount the 100-400 on the 5D3 when im out and about. Now that I have the 300 im finding im using the 100-400 less and less and i often put the 1.4 on the 300 and mount it to the 7D2.....the AF on the 7D2 is just killer so I get shots i never would get with the 5D3

Seriously considering selling the 100-400 and jumping on the Sigma 150-600. I was extremely impressed with 600MM on the 7D2 when i was in yellowstone this past fall

I made the switch and sold the 70-300 after getting the 100-400II. I do miss how light and easy the 70-300 was to carry around. Its more like taking a standard zoom ( which fits in a small should bag like a retro 7 ) making it a fun lens to shoot with and I had no problem taking it anywhere. I can't say the same about the 100-400.

I do like the longer reach and I plan to get a 1.4 when I finally upgrade my camera bodies but I can certainly see owning both. If I didn't like the 135 so much I would have probably kept both.

While I do not have a 70-300L, I do own a 70-200 f/4 IS along with the 100-400L II. I kept the 70-200 f/4 after buying the original 100-400L due to its smaller weight and size for those times I do not need the added reach of 400mm. It takes a 1.4x TC very well, too, so I can get to 280mm with a fairly compact telephoto. The 100-400L gets used more often, but it is nice to have the smaller option available.

I never use to take my 135L out for wildlife shoots But now its always in my bag. On the 7D2 its close to 200MM and the bokeh is insane for wildlife. I tried the 70-300L and was never a fan of the lens with the 100-400 in the bag.

I've never taken my 135L out for wildlife. It never even crossed my mind. I may have to give that a try sometime, just to try something different.

If I'm going to have 2 tele-zooms in my bag, your option is both lighter on the wallet and weight-wise...and a preferred option to retaining the 70-300.