Canon 300mm or 70-300L or 100-400 owners

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/21/2013 05:16:40 PM · #1

Hi all,

I'm looking at investing in a tele lens around 300-400mm. I personally just haven't found my 70-200 all that useful for my trips to zoo's and on nature trails, always running out of gas on the needed focal length.

So the 3 lenses I'm looking at are the

- Canon 70-300L
- Canon 100-400L
- Canon 300 f4 IS

The two zooms are certainly appealing, being that they are zooms and have more flexibility for those occasions where the subject moves closer/further to the camera. From my reading, the 70-300L is much (?) sharper than the 100-400 and also sounds like it has a much quicker AF. On the other hand, the 100-400 has the extra reach. However, there seems to be some consensus on the web that the 100-400mm is pretty soft at 400mm wide open. Of course you could stop it down, but that would required a lot of light and/or a camera that handle high ISO better than my current camera.

The odd one out is the 300mm prime, which by all accounts is superbly sharp and quick, and has great AF. Only downside is no zoom, so I'd be zooming with my feet which is not always possible.

Anyway, long preamble -- just wanted to ask for those here at DPC who have one of the above lenses, what made you ultimately pick that lens, since the others would've invariably been in the same discussion. Would you change your mind if you could do it again?

Message edited by author 2013-01-21 17:56:00.

Giles

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/21/2013 05:52:28 PM · #2

have you considered the bigma?

i wanted a longer reach and couldnt justify the outlay on a big canon so i got a sigma 50-500 for Â£400 works great for what i want and with a 1.4x (no auto focus on my 5d mkii) gets a bit extra reach

heres a pic from today with it handheld at 500mm, no edits just aperture import and upload to flickr

IMG_9931 by gilesbert, on Flickr

Message edited by author 2013-01-21 17:53:11.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/21/2013 06:06:47 PM · #3

The 100-400mm *may* be softer at 400 than at 300, but at 300 it's arguably better than the new lens, and anything over 300 is icing on the cake, eh? I've personally never noticed a difference, in the times I've used it. I recommend it highly...

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/21/2013 06:15:37 PM · #4

I second looking at the Bigma. It is a bit softer than the 100-400, but having gotten used to the rotating zoom of the Sigma, I just cant stand that push pull zoom on the Canon which I can't seem to get right while keeping the camera to my eye. Plus while the 400 to 500mm range matters a great deal, it is amazing how often that 50-100mm comes into play.

01/21/2013 11:06:29 PM · #5

I sold my 300 and bought a 100-400. I'm happy with that decision.

01/22/2013 02:42:44 PM · #6

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I sold my 300 and bought a 100-400. I'm happy with that decision.

You don't miss the constant f/4?

01/22/2013 04:05:21 PM · #7

Originally posted by gcoulson:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I sold my 300 and bought a 100-400. I'm happy with that decision.

You don't miss the constant f/4?

I found the constant focal length to be much more limiting. I used it mainly when shooting the Oregon Ducks. 300mm is no good when De'Anthony Thomas goes from being 50 yards away to 5 yards away in 4 seconds. ;)

Now, I am shooting with a 5D2 so I can jack the ISO to 3200 without too much degradation which does make up some for being at 5.6 on the long end.

Message edited by author 2013-01-22 16:06:04.

01/22/2013 04:22:20 PM · #8

Thanks folks. Definitely leaning toward the 100-400. Last question, can you handhold this guy easily, or is a monopod the way to go?

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

01/22/2013 04:53:16 PM · #9

I handhold. I actually tried a monopod and it annoyed me.

scooter97

Canon EOS-6D

01/22/2013 05:07:13 PM · #10

My choice is the 100-400. I have used a friend's Bigma and it is slower to focus and not as good in low light as my Canon. In excellent light however, the Sigma takes excellent images. I like the idea of a prime and I may get one one of these days but I do enjoy the versatility the zoom offers. I handhold 99% of the time.

MAK

Leica CL

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

01/22/2013 05:14:41 PM · #11

Why not get a 2X for your 70-200?

I have owned the 300mm f4 and the 100-400, to be honest I prefer the versatility of the 100-400, the 300 f4 is a quality prime and give exceptional results but is limited to just 300mm, the 100-400 produces good images and has a good range, nice Zoo lens, but if I am totally honest I would say you would get very similar results if you put a nice 2X Canon mmii or 3 on the end of your 70-200 then you have even more range

Giles

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/22/2013 05:24:54 PM · #12

hes sold his 70-200 already....

01/22/2013 05:59:18 PM · #13

Originally posted by Giles_uk:

hes sold his 70-200 already....

That, and the fact that the 2x extender comes with a 2-stop reduction, which would've rendered the lens all but useless.

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

01/22/2013 06:25:51 PM · #14

Originally posted by gcoulson:

Originally posted by Giles_uk:
hes sold his 70-200 already....

That, and the fact that the 2x extender comes with a 2-stop reduction, which would've rendered the lens all but useless.

I think the assumption was you had the 70-200 f/2.8 which would then lower it to f/5.6 which is the same as the 100-400 on the long end...

MAK

Leica CL

01/22/2013 06:27:12 PM · #15

Originally posted by gcoulson:

Originally posted by Giles_uk:
hes sold his 70-200 already....

That, and the fact that the 2x extender comes with a 2-stop reduction, which would've rendered the lens all but useless.

A 70-200 I am sure is f2.8, so with a 2X it makes it a 400mm f5.6, the same as the 100-400. but if you've sold it then its already too late.
I used a 70-200L combo with a 2x and had great results then you put the 2X in your pocket and you have a 70-200 f2.8. Hardly 'useless'

Thanks Doc, ya beat me too it. :)

Message edited by author 2013-01-22 18:27:45.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/22/2013 06:33:35 PM · #16

Originally posted by MAK:

Originally posted by gcoulson:

Originally posted by Giles_uk:
hes sold his 70-200 already....

That, and the fact that the 2x extender comes with a 2-stop reduction, which would've rendered the lens all but useless.

A 70-200 I am sure is f2.8, so with a 2X it makes it a 400mm f5.6...

His was the 70-200 f/4, so with a 2x it would have been f/8, and unusable with AF... well, without taping contacts.