EF 70-300L compared to EF 100-400L MkII

I have recently been able to try both the EF70-300L and the EF 100-400 MkII for a week and I want to take time to post my impressions of both lenses. My experience may be useful to others.

First, to put these remarks in context, a few introductory comments. My main camera is a 7DMkII and my usual long lens is a Tamron 70-300 VC. I did not try either lens on a FF camera. A few weeks ago, I started a thread about these two lenses asking which one readers would choose and why. I left it pretty open ended in order to get a view of how people thought when arriving at their conclusions. For anyone interested, here's a link to that thread: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1448702.

Before getting into specifics, let me say that both lens are a joy to use and the images they produce are beautiful. I would love to own either and may soon, with great difficulty, choose one. While I'm sure some differences can be found on an optical bench, in real world use, both seem exceptional to me. OK - on to specific observations.

1. While the list price for the 100-400 is about $1000 more than that of the 70-300, a recent visit to the Canon Refurb Store showed a price of just under $1000 for the 70-300 and about $1400 for the 100-400.
   
   
2. With the release of the 100-400 MkII, the price for used 70-300s is a bit soft and it may be possible to get quite a bargain used. Canon's on price may also be coming down a bit. The refurb price on the 70-300 is very good.
   
   
3. The 70-300 fits into my normal bags so I can carry it with me and have it available when an opportunity presents itself. The 100-400 - especially with the tripod mount attached - is too large and will require either advanced planning to use or larger bags. Larger bags kind of defeats the purpose of traveling lighter.
   
   
4. While both lenses focus fast and accurately, the 100-400 is faster.
   
   
5. My 7DII image files are good enough and large enough to allow significant cropping when needed so the 100mm difference at the long end is, in my view, of less importance than other considerations. Besides 300mm is pretty long on a crop. On the other hand, the difference between 70mm and 100mm on the short end seems to me to be great enough to make the 70-300 more of a general purpose lens than the 100-400. Bear in mind that I did not use either lens on a FF camera where these differences might be more important.
   
   
6. I personally have more difficulty picking up small moving subjects - such as BIF - at 400m than at 300mm. Practice and thoughtful use might change that with experience, but the 100-400 is a bit harder track moving subjects with.
   
   
7. The 100-400 focuses closer so might have more useful macro functions.
   
   
8. The zoom lock on the 100-400 stiffens zoom functions to prevent creep. The lock on the 70-300 actually locks the lens at 70mm and prevents any zoom function. However the 70-300 does not creep - the 100-400 (unlocked) does.
   
   
9. The IS on the 70-300 is very effective but not so much as the IS on the 100-400.
   
   
10. The 70 - 300 will not work with most Canon TC unless you set it a 300mm and tape it down so it won't move. A bit of a pain but workable.
    
    
11. The focus ring on the 100-400 is smooth but not extremely light. And it is NOT where the user (at least this user) would hold the lens. The zoom ring, on the other hand, falls right to my grip easily.
    
    
12. The focus ring on the 70-300 is VERY light and smooth. It is also, unfortunately, right under my hand when I hold the lens which leads to the possibility of inadvertently moving it slightly while manipulating the lens. The zoom ring is too far forward on the lens meaning I have to consciously reach for it. All this means that I must re-think my grip on the lens to avoid touching the focus ring and bring the zoom ring more easily to hand. Or buy a tripod mount for the lens (it does not come with one) which makes the lens much less likely to fit in a bag with other gear.
    
    

Interesting read, thanks.

I did find your comparisons of focal length a little surprising, specifically that you attributed more value to the 70-300's 30mm advantage at the wide end than to the 100-400's 100mm advantage at the long end. I kind of get what you're saying about 300mm already being quite long on a crop and having the ability to crop but, for any given situation, the 100-400 would always give you an extra 100mm of reach (or 160mm on a crop).

I think it all boils down to what you want out of the lens. Whilst your requirements may favour the wider end most of the time, I suspect many will be buying these lenses primarily for their ultimate reach and, for that reason, the extra 100mm may be more attractive. We're all different I guess.

I own both. both are excellent. I use 70-300L for my normal stuff and 100-400LII on occasions when I shoot wildlife or I know I want longer landscapes. The 70-300L is much easier to carry and use, imo. I don't believe in using TCs with zooms. either lens is great at all apertures and focal lengths.

rgs wrote in post #17861033
I have recently been able to try both the EF70-300L and the EF 100-400 MkII for a week and I want to take time to post my impressions of both lenses. My experience may be useful to others.

1. While the list price for the 100-400 is about $1000 more than that of the 70-300, a recent visit to the Canon Refurb Store showed a price of just under $1000 for the 70-300 and about $1400 for the 100-400.
   
   

I think that is for version 1 of the 100-400

runninmann wrote in post #17861503
I think that is for version 1 of the 100-400

What I saw was the MkII. Version 1 was under $1000. I was surprised. However when the 70-300 arrived from Canon last week, it was insured for $1500 and Canon sind it was valued at $2600.

Vertigo1 wrote in post #17861411
Interesting read, thanks.

I did find your comparisons of focal length a little surprising, specifically that you attributed more value to the 70-300's 30mm advantage at the wide end than to the 100-400's 100mm advantage at the long end. I kind of get what you're saying about 300mm already being quite long on a crop and having the ability to crop but, for any given situation, the 100-400 would always give you an extra 100mm of reach (or 160mm on a crop).

I did not mean to diminish the value of the extra reach but rather to point out that the wider view of the 70-300 makes it a more of a long general purpose lens while the 100-400 becomes a more specialized lens.

It's cool, I understand. I'm not sure how much difference the additional 30mm would make in terms of flexibility but I guess, on a crop, it's effectively a 48mm difference in reach.

I look at focal lengths from the perspective of full frame which may well paint things differently, i.e. the difference at the wide end isn't as pronounced plus the additional 100mm at the long end can make all the difference in the world when you don't have the crop factor helping

you're right. 70mm makes a big difference in the "real" world for me. I often get asked why I own both lenses but I use both a lot and for different things.

that's sounds like twisted logic . I use crop and FF and find the 70mm starting point much more useful than 100mm especially on FF

Well I don't think there's that much difference between 70mm and 100mm on full frame but, then again, I have both the 100-400 II and the 70-200 II and the latter is almost a walkabout lens on FF so I kind of know where the OP is coming from.

I can't really see the point of having both the 70-300 and 100-400 though as there's far too much overlap.

not concerned with overlap. if I use a lens I keep if. if not it goes. I have climbed bridges with the 70-300L. it is much easier to carry. it'll fit in my jacket pocket without hood. the lens I have never seen a use for is the 70-200 f2.8. huge and expensive and too short for my uses on FF -- as big as the 100-400 and costs as much. but I tend to be an f8 shooter.

ed rader wrote in post #17861715
that's sounds like twisted logic . I use crop and FF and find the 70mm starting point much more useful than 100mm especially on FF

Not sure to whom this was directed but here's my logic:

The 70-300 can do everything the 70-200 can do and, in a pinch, be made to stand in for the 100-400 as well. 100mm is too long for general use on a crop but 70mm is not. Since the 70-300 is small enough to carry in your basic kit and has a short enough FL for use other than wildlife or sports, it is more generally useful. The 100-400 is certainly better when 400mm (or longer with some PP cropping) is needed, but less useful overall.

I think the 70-300L is better suited for travel, since I've migrated to FF, I miss those 100 mm of extra reach for wildlife, but the 100-400II is more expensive, bigger and heavier so maybe I may need to switch to bigger bags to carry it, that's an additional expense I should consider too!. I don't expect that a newer lens like the 100-400II could be less in sharpness and IS capability than the 70-300L, but I'm still satisfied with the results I'm getting with my lens so far, so I may need to get closer to my subjects for a while

Interesting and I guess that just shows how we all have different requirements. I've been asked why I keep the 70-200 when I have the 100-400 but I'd never part with it as I love it to death. Then again I shoot weddings and the like and the 70-200 focal range on FF combined with f/2.8 is invaluable to me

rgs wrote in post #17861749
The 70-300 can do everything the 70-200 can do

Wow, not for me. To me the two stops difference between the 70-200 and the 70-300 or 100-400 is huge and is why these lenses have completely different purposes in my kit.

I have a 70-200/2.8 IS II and I use it for sports and portraits for the most part, and I would guess I shoot it wide open a lot more than I ever stop down. Neither the 70-300L not the 100-400L is capable of even working for the majority of the stuff I use the 70-200 for.

And then I have a 100-400L II. I would agree that this and the 70-300 are pretty similar, with one being smaller and handier while the other offers more reach. But they are bot slow and to me that more than anything is what makes them a lot different from a fast lens like the 70-200/2.8.