Own 100-400L and 70-300 4-5.6IS USM BOTH?

[jeremy_center]

Any reason to own BOTH of these lenses? I've got the 70-300 and am

thinking of replacing it with the 100-400L. Here's what comes to my

mind:

 

The 70-300 is lighter and easier to carry around. Although the the L

has longer reach and the ability to combine with teleconverters for

even longer reach.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Jeremy

[iori]

I kept my 75-300IS when I bought the 70-200IS with 1.4x extender, as the latter is much too large and heavy to be carrying around for family vacations. If you can afford it, keep the 70-300IS.

[ryan mcgill - trm photo st]

Jeremy,

 

Actually you can only answer that question. Ask yourself where you have the zoom most of the time... 100mm and up or 90mm and down? If you use the shorter end of the 70-300mm more frequently keep it. If not trade it or sell it.

 

~Ryan

[yakim_peled1]

If you think you'll be using both lenses and you have no financial issues (e.g. having both will not cause you to give up buying other lenses you want), why not?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jim_larson1]

Nowhere in this post is anything regarding image quality?

 

Also. . .unless you have a "1" series camera, the 100-400/4L-IS won't perform AF with either canon TC attached.

[jeremy_center]

oh yeah... I'm shooting a 20D.

[steve santikarn]

I have the 70-300 and I'm considering the 100-400 for its extra reach. I won't be getting rid of the 70-300 unless the quality of the 100-400 is much much better, some how I can't see that happening. The 70-300 is light weight, it's black, and the IS works very well. I am wondering if the 400 end of the 100-400 will be much use for hand-held photography (I use 20D so that makes the lens over 600 mm equiv).

[mike_meloy]

"I am wondering if the 400 end of the 100-400 will be much use for hand-held

photography (I use 20D so that makes the lens over 600 mm equiv)."

 

I use it hand held at 400mm ALL the time! That's what 'IS' is for.

[phyrpowr]

I have the 100-400, and if I could justify the $$$ outlay, I'd get the newest 70-300 IS

 

When I'm in a city, I like telephoto for architectural details, compressing distance etc, and up to 300 is all I need. Down to 70 helps on the shorter range shots. It's also good for candid portraits, and really the limit, size wise, that I'd want in crowds, rooms, etc.

 

In the "great outdoors", all the tele you can carry is just barely enough, and I take the 100-400 plus a 1.4 TC. This is on the other hand really too much of monster for more congested urban shooting

[dariusz calkowski]

If you like or have to travel light and take with you something with longer focal lenght IMO 70-300 is good to have. You can add teleconverter to it as well(at the cost of IQ) only not canon and probably not sigma but I heard that Pro kenko-tamron are almost as good. So if you can afford get both lenses + TC. After time you can sell one if you won't use it.

[mwaks]

I own both the 100-400L and the 70-300 DO is,usm.

I started with the 400L, but it is very heavy and attracts lots of unwanted attention by onlookers. The shorter, and black 70-300 is lighter and much less conspicuous.

[jim_larson1]

The issue is "portage"; i.e. what can you reasonably carry, is a real issue.

 

The 100-400/5.6L-IS, in my opinion, is not a general purpose lens because of its size. The size, as well as the color, will attract attention. Not to mention the sheer hassle of carrying a lens this size. Certainly. . .when you are casually walking a trail or playing tourist. . .you do not want to have this lens.

 

In my mind, the size of the 100-400/5.6L-IS means that you are going to be not that far from your car. . .or a planning to be in one spot for most of the day.

 

Personally. . .I think the 70-200/IS falls in the same category. . .too large for carrying with you all day long.

 

The 70-300/DO-IS is much more portable. That is the whole schtick of this lens. Small enough to NOT attact attention and light enough to carry. But don't kid yourself: While small, you are still attaching the 70-300/DO-IS to a slr camera. SLR's are not small. ANYBODY will recognize the difference between a SLR and a P&S.

 

In my view. . .once you pull out a SLR -> I honestly don't think it makes much difference (in terms of standing out) between a 70-300/DO-IS, a 70-300/(non DO)-IS, or even a 17-85/IS.

 

Personally.. . the smaller size of the DO-IS is not worth the price premium over the non-DO. For the incremental weight. . .the cost savings of the non-DO is worth the price (your milage may vary)

 

Granted. . .the 70-300/IS is newer than the 70-300/DO-IS. I have not seen any head to head comparisons of these lenses. There are some reported bokeh and flare issues with the DO lens.

 

Another lens in this cost category is the 70-200/4L. This lens is, in my view, borderline in terms of being portable. Half the diameter and weight of the 70-200/IS, it is still fairly large and heavy. It is also white. . .which makes it stand out.

 

I have the 70-200/4L. I *really* like this lens. It takes great pictures, even with a 1.4TC attached. Yes.. . I don't always take it with me because of the size. I almost *never* carry the hood, primarily because I have problems putting the hood in my pack AND it makes the whole rig VERY conspicuous.

 

If I had to do it over again. . .Sure I would buy the 70-200/4L. Because the 70-300/IS lenses (DO and non-DO) were not available. :)

 

Today.. . .I would seriously consider the 70-300/IS for the reasons stated above. I am, however, emotionally attached to my 70-200/4L. It always is with me when I go on vacation (it rides the plane. . . but is not always in the day bag).

 

I do desire a "longer gun". I may yet add the 70-300/IS for day-to-day shooting. I would not consider the 100-400. I would sooner buy a 300/4L-IS if I wanted "large glass". (I figure that the 300/4L-IS with a 1.4TC will perform simlar to the 100-400 at the long end. . .maybe better)

[bellavance]

Nice to have both: The 100-400L for Car Travel and the 70-300DO for Air Travel.

 

Pierre