100-400 vs 70-300 IS

I have been doing some test shots, just recieved my Tamron 28-300 VC and though I would see how it compares. That test will have to wait but what I did notice was the 300mm from Canon and 300MM from Tamron are nothing like each other. This got me to thinking...how do my two fave teles compare to each other?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Intéressant....

I've never tried the 70-300. So I can't really say anything. There is just nothing to compare between my 1-4 and my old 75-300. What I am sure of though, is that I would miss that extra 100mm with the 70-300. And cropping won't help, as I also crop sometimes shots taken at 400. You know what we say. the longer the better

And besides, I'm really happy with my 1-4:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

NeilyB, I think you have a worse-than-is-possible-to-have copy of the 100-400.

I had the 70-300 IS. It was not that good. I have the 100-400L, and it's way better.


....

Interesting. Thx for posting.

I can tell you that if my new 100-400 is not better than my old 70-300's 300mm @400mm wide open, it's going back immediately for the 300 F4 IS. I would actuallly be quite happy if my new 100-400 was as good @400mm as my 70-300IS was from 70-200mm.

aero145 wrote in post #4835286
NeilyB, I think you have a worse-than-is-possible-to-have copy of the 100-400.

I had the 70-300 IS. It was not that good. I have the 100-400L, and it's way better.

....

A few reviews I've seen has the MTF figures pretty close for those respective focal lengths and apertures.

Here's Photozone's.

7-3

471 x 1707

EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE: http://www.photozone.d​e …on_100400_4556_​is/mtf.gif Click here to see our image rules.

There is not a huge amount of difference between decent lenses. Both are decent lenses. People pay silly money for tiny incremental improvements. The 70-300 IS is a very good lens indeed for the price. The 100-400 Is is just a decent lens.

I was merely suprised at the difference in zoom power from 300mm to 400mm, there isn't much. This added to the sharpness of the 7-3 makes it a great bargain.

Neilyb wrote in post #4835644
I was merely suprised at the difference in zoom power from 300mm to 400mm, there isn't much. This added to the sharpness of the 7-3 makes it a great bargain.

Some have said the 100-400 is really around 380mm. But two things come into play IMHO:

1. sharpness wide open
2. frame filling ability

Even though the 100-400 is theoretically only 100mm more, a good copy has a serious advantage for wildlife. First, the 70-300IS isn't even really that sharp at F8 at 300mm. Wide open it's not very good at the long end, making cropping fairly pointless. With a good copy of the 100-400, you get superior wide open sharpness and more frame filling ability. The combination of filling the frame more and doing it at a sharper level lets you crop successfully.

I think the difference between 100-400 really shows itself out in the field. I don't think shooting magazines do it justice. The 70-300IS IMHO is really a great 70-200 lens with a bonus of extra reach. If you fill the frame well at 300, you are good to go. If you don't, forget about it. With a good copy of the 100-400, you will fill the frame better, and (as per Canon MTF) have a sharper image). I would be very happy if my new 100-400 had IQ@400 mm as good as the 70-300 in it's 70-200 range. This gives the 100-400 a distcint advantage to the 70-300IS, but still keepin that framing versatility intact. Not to mention the focusing and build of the 100-400 is superior to the 70-300IS, giving you more keepers. It also seems to me (based on RAW's and images I have seen on the web) that the 100-400 has a nod to better color at the long end than the 70-300IS does. that's important for wildlife has well.

Any real world testing??? How often we shoot a 400mm lens on a magazine cover??? I have seen bird shots with the 400mm. Is mind blowing.

Neilyb wrote in post #4835260
I have been doing some test shots, just recieved my Tamron 28-300 VC and though I would see how it compares. That test will have to wait but what I did notice was the 300mm from Canon and 300MM from Tamron are nothing like each other. This got me to thinking...how do my two fave teles compare to each other?

Hosted photo: posted by Neilyb in
./showthread.php?p=483​5260&i=i82625276
forum: Canon Lenses

Both shots taken at f8, should be comparable as both have max apps of f5.6 - the 100-400 was at 400mm the 70-300 at 300mm. IS was off.

The Sharpness of the 70-300 is comparable if not better in this test (more vibration would be evident with the 100-400 so this is hardly fair). But for 3 times the price what do you get? Well the 100-400 showed better corner sharpness and CA's, not shown here, and contrast and brightness is better, has better build and FTMF USM....but it is 3 times the price...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

and nothing that a little photoshop cannot help with.

If I were shooting film then the 100-400 wins, but in this day and age of lens correction software and high pass sharpening is the 70-300 IS just a freak of a lens?

Mike55 wrote in post #4835736
Some have said the 100-400 is really around 380mm. :

It's 400mm at infinity. It's a weird thing about zooms, but many of them behave that way. I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why this is so.

I guess the moving of the focus changes slightly the length. I am not saying the 70-300 is as good wide open nor suggesting, on this firum, that anything but an L could be sharp. But ti seems to me, for the money and if you want a walkaround lens, you are not losing a whole lot of length or IQ if you wish to compromise. As for magazines, if it is sharp then feathers would be too....

Neilyb wrote in post #4836451
I guess the moving of the focus changes slightly the length. I am not saying the 70-300 is as good wide open nor suggesting, on this firum, that anything but an L could be sharp. But ti seems to me, for the money and if you want a walkaround lens, you are not losing a whole lot of length or IQ if you wish to compromise. As for magazines, if it is sharp then feathers would be too....

the 70-300 does not have ring USM. EOM .

ed rader

Nobody doubts the IQ performance of the 70-300, it's a fine optic, though the 100-400 should still be better.

Also my 70-300 was EXCELLENT at f/8 at 300mm, but nowhere near as good at f/5.6. Because of this it was basically an f/8 lens for me at the long end, I rarely ever shot with it wide open at 300mm, and that's a lot of light lost.

HOWEVER, the AF is where the difference really lies. I sold my 70-300 after a month because I couldn't stand its crappy micro USM autofocus and lack of FTM. It was just way too slow for me, and without the ability to make manual adjustments in AF mode, every time it decided to hunt through the whole focus range (which it did a LOT), I wanted to smash it to pieces. The USM + FTM + focus limiter on the 100-400 make it a FAR superior lens imho.

Neilyb wrote in post #4835260
I have been doing some test shots, just recieved my Tamron 28-300 VC and though I would see how it compares. That test will have to wait but what I did notice was the 300mm from Canon and 300MM from Tamron are nothing like each other. This got me to thinking...how do my two fave teles compare to each other?

Both shots taken at f8, should be comparable as both have max apps of f5.6 - the 100-400 was at 400mm the 70-300 at 300mm. IS was off.

The Sharpness of the 70-300 is comparable if not better in this test (more vibration would be evident with the 100-400 so this is hardly fair). But for 3 times the price what do you get? Well the 100-400 showed better corner sharpness and CA's, not shown here, and contrast and brightness is better, has better build and FTMF USM....but it is 3 times the price...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

and nothing that a little photoshop cannot help with.

If I were shooting film then the 100-400 wins, but in this day and age of lens correction software and high pass sharpening is the 70-300 IS just a freak of a lens?

This post is one of the reasons I cancelled my 100-400 order and went with the 300 F4 IS. Should be here soon!

You will love it. I just got it couple of days ago. Is big. I thought my 70-200 is big. The 300 is longer and wider. It weights almost 3lbs.

Mike55 wrote in post #4898560
This post is one of the reasons I cancelled my 100-400 order and went with the 300 F4 IS. Should be here soon!