Help: EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM UD or EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM?

[E-Stew]

I've read reviews of both and am impressed with the EF 70-300mm a bit more due to it's image quality. However, I am afraid I won't have the extra reach the EF 100-400mm offers when I want it (e.g. Blue Angels air show). I'd consider the 1.4 or 2.0 extender, but apparently they only work at the 300mm range and you are then locked into a fixed zoom setting.

I'm leaning towards getting the EF 70-300mm. My thought is that if I find I need the reach of a 400mm or greater I can opt for a kenko pro extender (read somewhere that they work with the EF 70-300mm, but would have to do some research to be sure).

Anyone who has had experience with both of these lenses and can provide some additional thoughts for me to consider please share.

Thanks,

E-Stew

 

[thierry]

I would go with the 70-300. I haven't ever used Canon's, but in my experience with Nikon and shooting airshows and boat races I have found that an 80-400 just never came in handy. I always found that most of my photos were never greater than a 350mm focal range. And when I did use the longer focal range end, it was difficult to continually tracking the plane or boat in the viewfinder. Also, I another thing to look into would be the autofocus speeds and sharpness.

Amazon.com: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM UD Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

 

[Big Mike]

I'd consider the 1.4 or 2.0 extender, but apparently they only work at the 300mm range and you are then locked into a fixed zoom setting.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that the Canon TeleConverters are not compatible with either of those lenses. They are restricted to F2.8 zoom lenses or prime lenses.
One main reason for that, is that on most cameras, you need a maximum aperture of F5.6 for the AF to work. A TC reduces the maximum Fstop, so with both those lenses already having a max of F5.6 (at the long end) the TC would take them past the point where AF would work.
But either way, I'm pretty sure that a TC won't 'lock you into a fixed zoom setting'.

As for the two lenses you mention...I've heard good things about the 70-300mm IS USM, but only when compared to the other 70-300mm lenses, most of which are cheap consumer zoom lenses. But I've seen several reviews of the 100-400mm, where it blows away $1000+ lenses. It's capable of fantastic image quality, much better than I would think possible from the 70-300mm. I haven't used the 70-300mm so I can't confirm that...but I have used the 100-400mm and it's pretty sweet. That being said, it's a huge, heavy lens and it's a push-pull zoom, which isn't ideal.

 

[E-Stew]

I'd consider the 1.4 or 2.0 extender, but apparently they only work at the 300mm range and you are then locked into a fixed zoom setting.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that the Canon TeleConverters are not compatible with either of those lenses. They are restricted to F2.8 zoom lenses or prime lenses.

This review is where I got the information regarding the Canon TeleConverters being compatible with the 100-300mm lens. At the end of the review a person commented that he thought the review was misleading in regard to the Teleconverter because he said the lens had to be extended out to 300mm for the extender to work. Whether any of this is actually true or not, I don't know; I just have unofficial reviews and commentary to go by. I misspoke when I said it had to be "locked" at 300mm.

Big Mike, it's good to hear you're very pleased with the quality of the 100-400mm. One of the reasons I started considering the 70-300mm was this comparison on a Canon site of images between the two lenses. The comparison seems to favor the 70-300mm. To my eye, the 70-300mm lens is slightly better.

The prices between these two is not much. I'm pretty torn between the two.

 

[Big Mike]

Oh...I missed something at first. I was thinking of the older 70-300mm, not the new L version. That one came out recently and I haven't really read any reviews of it yet.

So yes, it very well might beat out the 100-400mm.

 

[Big Mike]

From that comparison, it looks like the 70-300 may be sharper. It certainly seems to have more contrast, but also more C.A.

I think that the 100-400mm may be a bit long in the tooth, maybe due for an update, while the 70-300mm is brand new. I'd like to see and feel the two, side by side. Like I mentioned, the 100-400 is a beast and the push-pull isn't fun. If the 75-300mm is a good deal smaller & lighter, that would be another vote for it.

 

[E-Stew]

Exactly (the sharpness quality, not the C.A.). That's what has me leaning toward the 70-300mm. I like that it's an easier lens to travel, but should give me plenty of zoom that I'm looking for compared to the lens I have now. Thanks for your input. I'm going to give it some more thought, but this helps.

 

[kamerageek]

I bought the 70-300mm as a new photographer few years ago as a compliment to my kit lens. At the time I didn't know much about it. I have to say I am really happy with this lens. It's been my go to for sporting events and air shows. I only had one scenario where it didn't work for me. I haven't found many occasions where it couldn't deliver for me when I needed it.

I would gladly recommend this lens.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

The 70-300 is a GREAT lens for the money. The more I use it the more I like it. Sure, it has its faults, but the IQ is excellent for the price. I REALLY wanted the 70-300L but I cant justify paying an extra $1000.... Having a smaller and lighter lens is more important to me. I have done aviation photography with both. With the 70-300 I use around my home airport where I can get closer. The 100-400L I've mainly used at airshows. At the long end the IQ is better. The 70-300 get a little soft at 300mm, and you can really notice this when photographing aircraft. All the the fine detail starts degrading. I'll post some examples...


EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

0.003 sec (1/320)

f/6.3

300 mm

1250

EF 100-400L IS USM

0.002 sec (1/500)

f/7.1

400 mm

100

Both are 90% of the original crop...




Oops... I missed that you were initially talking about the 70-300L. Sorry.... Yeah for airshows, on a crop sensor 100mm on the short end is a little much. For the money, I think you would get more use out of the 70-300L over the 100-400L. The 70-300 is supposed to be sharper too.

 

[bratkinson]

I'm thinking you may want to rent or borrow both lenses you are considering and try them out on real airplanes. Just stay off the airport property or the Homeland Security people will be all over you in a flash!

Also, since you're shooting with a crop sensor, multiply all focal lengths by 1.6.