100-300 f/5.6L vs. 70-200 f/4L

[ian_ray]

So, I've got the 100-300 "L" lens, which is old, slow to focus, and

takes awesome pictures. I'm thinking about a 70-200, but I'm curious

if anyone can acutally compare the optics/image quality of the two.

I know the 70-200 would be a much more user freindly lens, but I

don't mind the old push-pull zoom so much. I don't mind the 5.6, or

the slow focusing, all I'm looking for is wheither the optics of the

70-200 blow the 100-300 out of the water or not......

 

Thanks!

[oofoto]

I have the 100-300 5.6L and I agree the optics are great and i don't mind the focussing speed etc, but i fear that if i ever picked up 70-200 f4L then the biggest difference i would notice is in handling.

The f5.6L would then feel OLD!

[Greg M]

I picked up one of the last "new" 100-300 5.6L lenses being sold off by B&H for $330 a couple of years or so ago. Kept it for a while, then sold it to buy a 70-200f4L. The image quality of the newer zoom is extraordinary, but does now "blow away" what you can get with the 100-300L. The AF speed and ergonomics are light years ahead of the 100-300L though. What I wound up doing was selling the 70-200L too because the 200mm end wasn't long enough for much of what I was shooting. I was doing a lot of 30-50% cropping of sports and wildlife shots taken with my 10D to get the shot I wanted, which I did not want to have to do. I now own the 100-400L, which I am very happy with. If you like the 300mm focal length and don't mind the quirky mechanics, hold onto the 100-300L. If you want to upgrade, I would say stay with a lens that goes to at least 300mm, and buy the 100-400L or the 300mm f4L, both of which have image stabilization.

[istvan_sandor]

Ian, please drop me a mail if you decide on selling the 100-300/5.6L.

Best, Istvan / istvan.sandor@axelero.hu

[gary_lim1]

I had both of these lenses. I think the image from these lenses are comparable. 70-200 has definitely better built and faster AF. But it needs a 1.4x to convert itself to the similar range and speed as 100-300. If I were to upgrade, I would either go for 70-200 f2.8L or 100-400 L. For the 2.8 case, u can always add TC to extend. In my case, I ended up selling both to upgrade to 70-200 f2.8 'cos I already have 1.4x and 2.0 TC.

[bruce johnson]

I own the 5.6 and agonized over the same decision for years. One day I saw a great deal on a used 4L and sprung for it. The reason for getting it was I switched from a 4 lens travel kit to a 3 lens travel kit: 20-35 + 28-135 + 100-300/5.6L + 50/1.8 to 17-40 + 70-200 + 50/1.8. I haven't put the 5.6 on since the switch, but can't bear to sell it either. Image quality is fairly close with the 5.6 being a little warmer. Build quality/ergonomics is a no brainer. My dislikes of the 4L are: 67mm filter size (I've got a lot of 58mm lenses and filters, who wants to buy and carry around more filters?), no 67mm close-up filters (I use 72mm 500D and a step up ring, it's a big pain to try to use with a lens hood, but possible), no IS (the addition of IS would make this a KILLER lens!).

[andrew robertson]

I had the 100-300 L, sold it for the 70-200 f/4L, and sold that because I don't like it

nearly as much as my 135 f/2.8 SF.

 

The 70-200 L doesn't blow the 100-300 L out of the water optically, but it's a stop faster

and a lot easier to use. The 100-300 is a really creaky old lens.