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

JeffreyG wrote in post #17862053
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.

Agreed. I was thinking more of FL than speed and could have been more clear. I started to get into lens speed but decided to keep it short. As you have noted, if your work requires a fast lens wide open, neither the 70-300 or the 100-400 will do. Probably the 70-200 f4 won't get it done either.

The f2.8 version of the 70-200 is quite large but the f4 version compares nicely to the 70-300 which is, essentially, an f 5.6 lens. I would say that the high ISO performance of my 7DII will compensate for the 1 stop difference in many cases. But, as always, the comparison is not exact and, of course, a faster lens will also benefit from good high ISO performance.

yeah it comes down to what you shoot. if I were shooting weddings/people i'd have the 70-200L f2.8. funny thing about overlap. I remember once a fellow asked if he should get the 100-400 or the 400 f5.6. someone responded he should get the prime because he already owned the 70-200 and that 100-400 would give him too much overlap lol

Thank you for the comparisons. I have been looking at the 70-300L for a while. Either comparing it to the 70-200 F2.8 IS II or the 100-400. I don't shoot much wildlife, so the 100-400 probably wouldn't be a smart choice. If the 70-300L were a little faster, it would be a no brainer for me.

Engler519 wrote in post #17863484
Thank you for the comparisons. I have been looking at the 70-300L for a while. Either comparing it to the 70-200 F2.8 IS II or the 100-400. I don't shoot much wildlife, so the 100-400 probably wouldn't be a smart choice. If the 70-300L were a little faster, it would be a no brainer for me.

If you can get by with 200mm, the 70-200 f/4 IS may be an option. It is fairly light and compact -- similar to the 70-300L -- and gives you a constant maximum f/4 aperture. It also takes a 1.4x TC well if you occasionally need a little more reach.

I bought this lens before the 70-300L was ever announced, and have been quite happy with it. I also have a 100-400L for shooting wildlife, but kept the 70-200 as a lighter weight travel option for times when I would not be seriously shooting wildlife.

That is great input, thank you. I have heard good things about the 70-200 F4L IS and really like the size advantage over the 2.8 versions specifically. I may need to rent one and test it out, it may be fine for what I need.