100-400 mkII or 70-300L

I hope this will interest many of you. Which lens would you choose and why? The 70-300L or the 100-400 mkII? No other details because I would like to see how and why others make their choice. And no other lens need apply - just those two. I hope this becomes an interesting topic.

100-400 II for me. I'd definitely miss the 300-400 range more than I'd miss the 70-100 range.

rgs wrote in post #17829211
I hope this will interest many of you. Which lens would you choose and why? The 70-300L or the 100-400 mkII? No other details because I would like to see how and why others make their choice. And no other lens need apply - just those two. I hope this becomes an interesting topic.

I have both.... I got the 70-300L soon after I got my first DSLR, i.e., a 60D. I used it a lot and really like it. I added the 100-400ii earlier this year and it is my main lens. I haven't used the 70-300L since I got it.

That said.... I can't seem to part with my 70-300L. To me, it's that good. I loaned it to our youngest son.... I'm guessing he'll inherit it unofficially, if that hasn't already happened.

You can pick up a pristine 70-300L for about a little more than half of what I paid: $1500. I've seen them at $800 quite a few times. It is a great traveling lens. It packs easily and the weight isn't a big deal, at least to me and I'm an old curmudgeon.

Sorry for not giving a definitive answer to your question. If I had to choose one, you know which one I'd keep....

Easiest question of the week. I'll take the reach of the 100-400mm II.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17829266
I have both.... I got the 70-300L soon after I got my first DSLR, i.e., a 60D. I used it a lot and really like it. I added the 100-400ii earlier this year and it is my main lens. I haven't used the 70-300L since I got it.

That said.... I can't seem to part with my 70-300L. To me, it's that good. I loaned it to our youngest son.... I'm guessing he'll inherit it unofficially, if that hasn't already happened.

You can pick up a pristine 70-300L for about a little more than half of what I paid: $1500. I've seen them at $800 quite a few times. It is a great traveling lens. It packs easily and the weight isn't a big deal, at least to me and I'm an old curmudgeon.

Sorry for not giving a definitive answer to your question. If I had to choose one, you know which one I'd keep....

The same here. I own both, and still use both even though the 70-300mm is up for sale. There's no doubt, both are great lenses. The 70-300mmL beer keg design is cool - compact and easily packable and relatively light for the package. The difference for me is that when I use the 100-400mm I have a purpose - wildlife or birding and not much else. The 70-300mm on the other hand will go on one of my bodies for general walkabout, both range and size make it a more fun and flexible package (I expect to be flamed for this!). All that said, I also have two versions of 70-200mm, so the overlap says to stick with the 100-400mm.

Is the extra 100mm worth another $1000? That's a big question that many of us have answered and justified. Your turn.

100-400, because usually when I have it mounted I'm using the long end the most. I also have a 70-200/2.8, so I could basically re-create the 70-300 with that and a 1.4X TC.

To my mind, the 70-300 appeals to photographers that are sensitive to size and weight in their kit, but also need very good IQ. That's not a huge market, but a fair one and the 70-300L has hit the mark I think for those people.

.

rgs wrote in post #17829211
I hope this will interest many of you. Which lens would you choose and why? The 70-300L or the 100-400 mkII? No other details because I would like to see how and why others make their choice. And no other lens need apply - just those two. I hope this becomes an interesting topic.

I use the full range of my 100-400 v2.

I take a heck of a lot of images with it at 100mm, and often wish I could go just a little bit wider. But then again, I am using it on a 1.3 crop factor 1D4. When I used it on my full frame 5D, I rarely wanted it to go any wider than 100mm.

I also take a heck of a lot of images at the long end of the 100-400. There are times when I wish that it was longer, and I feel that I miss some shots when I use the 100-400 instead of one of my big lenses.

So, if I were using a 70-300mm, I would benefit a little tiny bit by being able to drop down to 90mm or 95mm when the occasion calls for it. But then again, I could just use a full frame camera body with the 100-400 and it would be plenty wide enough for my needs.

However, if I were using a 70-300mm, I would suffer quite a bit by not being able to get up past 300mm. Yes, even if I were to use a 1.6 crop body, I would often need to go longer.

So for me this discussion is really about what range is the better fit for me and what I shoot and the way I shoot it. Other factors of these lenses really don't matter as much as range does, because all of those other factors are pretty similar to one another when comparing these two lenses. Well, except for the surprisingly close MFD of the 100-400; I use that quite a bit for close-up work with butterflies and grasshoppers and so forth. So maybe there is more to consider than range. In either case the 100-400 fits my needs better than a 70-300mm would because it will allow me to get more of the shots that I want to take.

.

With out a doubt, 100-400 II

I would chose the 100-400 MK 1 over the 70-300mm despite the 300mm's newer design, better AF and and IS, because of 400mm. In fact i did.

Now with the MkII the 100-400mm MkII has got he 300mm beat on all fronts, and well, it's 400mm.

I bought the 70-300L when it first came out. Great lens, quick focusing and sharp images. Doesn't take Canon TC's all that well. Like the compact size and weight.

When the 100-400 II was available, bought it and used it for a almost a year and never touched the 70-300L. The new 100-400 II is tremendous and the new coating(not on the 70-300L) gives a nice subtle contrast effect. Takes Canon 1.4 III's very well.

The used market for the 70-300L is not that good. Used prices have dropped significantly since the release of the 100-400 II. If the price of the 100-400 II is ok, get the 100-400 II. I've sold my 70-300L for much less than asking.

notastockpikr wrote in post #17830176
I bought the 70-300L when it first came out. Great lens, quick focusing and sharp images.

The used market for the 70-300L is not that good. Used prices have dropped significantly since the release of the 100-400 II. If the price of the 100-400 II is ok, get the 100-400 II. I've sold my 70-300L for much less than asking.

That means that the 70-300mmL is a huge bargain!
It really is hard to believe how much of a great lens you can get for so little money (relatively speaking).

.

100-400 II for sure!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17830186
That means that the 70-300mmL is a huge bargain!
It really is hard to believe how much of a great lens you can get for so little money (relatively speaking).

.

Good for buyers for sure. Not good for sellers.

Wasn't using the 70-300L at all after getting the 100-400 II. I would still have it if it was being used. Great lens.

.

There may be a solution to this dilemma that eliminates the need to compromise at all.

Sony makes (or at least made) a 70-400mm zoom.

And Nikon has a newer 80-400mm VR zoom.

At various times I have considered buying into either system just to take advantage of the greater range of their ____ - 400mm zooms.

Problem is, while the Sony lens has great range, it doesn't have stabilization because they do in-body stabilization, which isn't supposed to be as good as lens-based IS for long focal lengths.

Nikon shooters that I trust (full time wildlife pros) rave about the IQ and reliability of the new 80-400mm. .That extra 20mm on the short end might just be worth buying a Nikon body and the lens to go with it. .But I guess I am a bit lazy, because while that may be the "best" option, I just bought the new Canon 100-400 when it came out because it saved me the trouble of learning a new camera and the hassle of making another purchase. .And now that I have the Canon 100-400 it really would't make sense to buy a Nikon body and a Nikon 80-400mm just to get that extra 20mm.

But then again, I do need another camera body so that I have a "no compromise backup". .So maybe I really should seriously consider selling my Canon 100-400v2 and getting a Nikon body and the 80-400mm to take its place. .The only caveat is that it isn't a great closeup lens, as it's MFD is a mediocre 5.7 feet.

Perhaps (if cost isn't an issue) the OP might want to consider the Nikon route - it seems to offer the best of the Canon 70-300mm and the best of the Canon 100-400mm all in one lens.

.

I'd rather do with out the 20mm of FL on the short end then lose the MFD of the 100-400, IMO if other factors being equal that makes it the better lens over the 80-400