Canon 70-300L IS USM or Canon 100-400L II IS USM?

Hi POTNer's,

What lens would you buy? I have ordered the Canon 70-300 IS USM, but now considering whether to cancell the order and buy the L verson now, or wait a month and be able to buy the 100-400mmL II IS USM? I need to know today.

What do you shoot? For things like wildlife, especially birds, you can never have enough reach. I have a 100-400 for such tasks. I also have a 70-200 f/4 IS too which gets more use and is much easier to carry around.

I like to shoot wildlife, people, buildings, transport vehicles, landscapes, cloud formations and the night sky. I appreciate it all. I would like to be a Jack of all trades, so to speak. If, something catches my eye, then I like to capture it. Because there's beauty in everything.

If it's a matter of a single month, I'd go for the 100-400 MkII. It's one of the top lenses they make for birding/wildlife, and the 300 isn't likely to be appreciably longer than your 70-200 for those things.

If you can afford it, my pick would be the 100-400L II IS USM. You already have
the 70-200 Covered with a good lens, so the extra reach would be beneficial for
Wildlife, transportation, air shows, etc.

--Evan

That's what I was considering

Dont even bother about 70-300 non L. Just wait for a month and get 100-400 II. Yes its almost 5 times of the price of 70-300 but it's 1000 times better than 70-300mm non L.

I have both. and I use both for different things. just remember the 70-300L is a lot easier to carry and use. it's my general long lens and the 100-400L II is my wildlife lens. in fact I just got another copy of the the 70-300L today after my last lens went off a 200 foot cliff into the pacific ocean.

I have a 70-300L and it is a good lens. It doesn't have the legions of fan boys the 70-200 & 100-400 have but it is a solid offering at a good price.

Having said that I am about to put some money down for a 100-400.

You wont go far wrong in either case - it all depends on if you think the extra 100mm is needed. I mostly use the 70-300 for motorsport and it is long enough.

ed rader wrote in post #17956699
I have both. and I use both for different things. just remember the 70-300L is a lot easier to carry and use. it's my general long lens and the 100-400L II is my wildlife lens. in fact I just got another copy of the the 70-300L today after my last lens went off a 200 foot cliff into the pacific ocean.

I am in a similar situation, except instead of the 70-300L I have the 70-200L f/4 IS which I use as a general purpose telephoto or when I want to travel lighter. The 100-400L II is my wildlife lens.

It boils down to whether you prefer more reach (100-400L) or a lighter, more compact lens (70-300L). Both are quality lenses. As for the 70-300 non-L, I used to own that lens and never cared for it. The lens was soft, especially at 300mm, and the AF performance was not great -- it is not a true USM lens, but instead uses a micro motor similar to the 50mm f/1.4. It is certainly not in the same league as the two L telephotos you are considering.

I have both of these lenses and the 70-200mm f/2.8 L II, each has its purpose. The 70-300mmL is an excellent travel lens, more compact and lightweight than either of the other two with minimal sacrifice to IQ. If light is good it's the one I grab every time. If I need the reach, my 7DII + 1.4x III TC + 100-400mm, and if I need wider aperture and/or fast shutter it's the 70-200mm. For a general purpose wildlife, walkaround, travel lens I think the 70-300mmL is at the top of its class.

Thank you everybody, I appreciate all your opinions. I have sent an email requesting my order be changed and cancelled the canon 70-300mm is usm and hood from the order. I have decided to buy the Canon 70-300mm L IS USM first. I will then decide about the canon 100-400mm L ii is usm, later this year after the rumored canon 200-600 is usm is released.

Yeah, that's a really good lens choice and purchase strategy. If that rumored 200-600 comes to pass, it's going to have me rethinking things as well!

beingaliveisnotliving wrote in post #17959146
Thank you everybody, I appreciate all your opinions. I have sent an email requesting my order be changed and cancelled the canon 70-300mm is usm and hood from the order. I have decided to buy the Canon 70-300mm L IS USM first. I will then decide about the canon 100-400mm L ii is usm, later this year after the rumored canon 200-600 is usm is released.

May I ask how much you are paying for your 70-300L. The reason I ask is.... .there are quite a few of them available used for great prices because people are selling them and buying the 100-400L ii. I also have both but won't sell my 70-300L because I paid $1500 for it and it's now worth $800. I see they are now selling for $1350 or so on Amazon.

If you are going to get a 70-300L, you might consider a used lens in pristine condition..... Then you won't lose so much if you decide to sell it and get the 100-400L ii.

If size and weight isn't a concern (it usually is, tho), then 100-400 is the one to get. Just remember that it doesn't really work well for people photography (they tend to get intimidated or creeped out).