100-400 mkII or 70-300L

Barring any other details the 100-400. There might be reasons for the 70-300 but without any more guidance from you none come to mimd.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17830158
.


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.

.

I've been thinking of ditching the 70-200mm f4L IS adding the 100-400mm II. Mostly for wildlife, but also with the intent that the 100-400mm might also function as a macro lens when shooting the rings at a wedding. Can you comment on this theory? thanks.

Thanks to everyone for their comments. I just wanted to get an idea of how you thought of theses two lenses. In my original post I neglected to say that the main camera is a 7DII. I should point out that I am not buying a lens anytime soon nor am I looking for purchasing advice. I just wanted to see how others think about these two lenses.

My current longer lens is a Tamron 70-300VC. It's a good lens - better than anything Canon offers except the L - but it focuses a bit slowly. It's focus liability became obvious to me recently when I had

a 100-400 mkII on loan from Canon for a week. I was impressed with how quickly and accurately the lens focused. My success rate with moving subjects improved significantly, proving the problem was not the 7DII but, rather, the Tamron.

My Tamron is with me all the time but the 100-400 is too big a lens to just throw in the camera bag and have available whenever an opportunity presents itself. With that lens, you really need to plan on using it in advance. Several of you mentioned the size of the 70-300 being an advantage. Others didn't seem to care.

So I have a 70-300 coming on loan soon. 300mm is really quite long on a crop and the 7DII image files permit a good deal of cropping when needed so the missing 100mm is pretty easy to compensate for. Canon refurb lists the 70-300 for just under $1000 while the 100-400 II is a bit over $1400 so there is not a huge price difference. It's going to be interesting to see which one I will prefer.

Thanks for all your input. I appreciate you taking time to respond thoughtfully. Here are some images made with my Tamron. When the Canon 70-300 arrives, I hope to give it a good workout.

Photo from rgs's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (708150)

Photo from rgs's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (726594)

Photo from rgs's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (722915)

Photo from rgs's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (751330)

Photo from rgs's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (744322)

I selected the original 100-400L over the 70-300L for the added reach -- even on a crop camera. So, it was a no-brainer for me to upgrade to the 100-400L II earlier this year, before our summer trip to Yellowstone, where you can never have enough reach.

I do still own a 70-200 f/4 IS for those times I want to carry a smaller, lighter telephoto. I owned the lens before getting the original 100-400L, and have never been able to bring myself to sell it, even though it doesn't get used that often.