EF75-300mm f4/5.6 IS vs EF100-400mm f4/5.6L IS

[sawyer1206]

I am currently torn between two different lenses for my Canon XTi and I am asking for your help to decide. A little bit of background first. I use my cameras to shoot my son and daughters sporting events. I just started the third season of my sons football and I am using my Xti and a Canon EF75-300mm f4/5.6 non-IS. My shots are better then last years when I used my Canon S3 IS w/1.4 extender, but I am not getting the sharp crisp images I thought I would get when I upgraded to the XTi.
I have been researching the Canon EF75-300mm f4/5.6 IS an the Canon EF100-400mm f4-5.6L IS. The 400mm is almost twice as much in price but the reviews have it written up to be a very sharp lens. Does the Image Stabilizer in the 300mm really help with getting sharper images? Is the extra money for the 400mm worth it? Has anyone had experince with both of these lenses an would be willing to help me decide?

 

[JustAnEngineer]

Could you post an image or two and describe what about the image is unsatisfying? Is the issue lens sharpness, camera shake or motion blur?

I have the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. The optical image stabilization works well, but that only solves the problem of camera shake (just as a tripod could). Neither image stabilization nor a tripod solves the problem of wanting to freeze fast-moving action with low light. For that, you need to use high ISO settings and a fast (wide aperture) lens, or else a powerful flash.

 

[sawyer1206]

Image 1 info: f/10 Shutter 1/500 ISO250

Image 2 info: f/6.3 Shutter 1/2000 ISO400

Image 3 info: f/6.3 Shutter 1/2000 ISO400

Here are a couple of my better shots from this year. When I view them at 100% they are blurred around the edges. I am not sure if it is camera shake or not. I use a monopod and I shoot on my knees with the monopod braced agaist my knee and inner thigh.

 

[Txaggie08]

The two are not comparable in my opinion. The L glass is a hold nother world from the lower canon glass.

I would make a recommendation I make to alot of our customers. Look at the 70-200 f2.8L. 200mm is a reasonably long lens on an APS body. Get yourself a high end teleconverter from sigma or canon and you'll have the option to go out to 400mm at f4 as well. Granted if I was in a pay situation where I was doing all long shots, then no I would go ahead to the 100-400mm. For a general use lens, the 70-200mm and teleconverter are a 10x more versatile combo that will serve you better.

I might add, with a large L lens at 2.8 or 3.5, in daylight shots you will find yourself(on a monopod especially) shooting a high enough shutter to not need IS most of the time. It's nice to have, but not several hundred dollars nice IMO.

 

[sawyer1206]

I might add, with a large L lens at 2.8 or 3.5, in daylight shots you will find yourself(on a monopod especially) shooting a high enough shutter to not need IS most of the time. It's nice to have, but not several hundred dollars nice IMO.

That's what I was thinking, I really don't see the IS feature in the 300mm to be a necessity for me. I only shoot from a monopod unless the subject is close to me which makes camera shake less of an issue. I wish I could justify the cost of a f/2.8 lens right now but I can't.

 

[usayit]

Go with the 100-400L over the 75-300 IS. There is no comparison. As for 70-200 f2.8L versus 100-400mmL, that is a completely different discussion with both lenses intended for completely different purposes. I owned both and chose the 100-400L over the 70-200 for various reasons. For low light, I'll go with primes.


Gig'em Aggies class of 97 .. whooop!

 

[Buszaj]

...I wish I could justify the cost of a f/2.8 lens right now but I can't.

Well, the non-IS version is less expensive than the 100-400. I use the f/4 non-IS for various sports and it is amazing, so if you have the money, the 70-200 2.8 would serve you very well.

 

[Big Mike]

The first shot looks a little out of focus but the other two look pretty good.

When I view them at 100% they are blurred around the edges

Do you mean around the edges of the images? That is an area where lower quality lenses usually do poorly and top quality lenses are better....although, almost all lenses will suffer quality loss in the corners.

 

[uplander]

Go with the EF 100-400 L It is going to be versatile for what you are doing the ability to go from 100mm to 400mm trumps any advantage having a 70-200 f/2.8 + TC's is going to give you. The 100-400L will give you amazing sharpness and the IS will give you the shots you wouldn't get without it at slower shutter speeds

 

[Edward Crim]

If you can justify the expense, get the 100-400 L lens. It is a great lens (and I don't think it's that heavy) for what you want to do. I use mine inside and out, day and night. Here are some of the uses I've put it to:

http://www.edwardcrim.com/fp_bird_fishing/
http://www.edwardcrim.com/kenya_day7/
http://web.mac.com/edwardcrim/Edward_Crim/Edwards_Blog/Entries/2008/8/24_Topeka.html
http://web.mac.com/edwardcrim/Edwar...2008/8/4_What’s_the_Capital_of_Minnesota.html