# 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS vs 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS



## LIsnap (Apr 18, 2012)

I just moved to the 5DIII from the 50D. With my 70-200mm f/4L non-IS I am missing the extra reach that the 50D crop factor provided for outdoor sports. Looking for suggestions on whether the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS is recommended over the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. Is the 70-300mm IQ and IS that much better to justify the trade off of 300mm vs 400mm max focal length? The 100-400mm seems due for an update that might make the choice easier, but I'd rather not wait indefinitely for that.


----------



## criza (Apr 18, 2012)

Why not get the Canon Extender 1.4x II or 2x III? 8)


----------



## Harv (Apr 18, 2012)

criza said:


> Why not get the Canon Extender 1.4x II or 2x III? 8)



The 70-300 L does not accept an extender.


----------



## Harv (Apr 18, 2012)

With the resolution of the 70-300 L and the 5D3, you should be able to crop fairly deep if needed. The IQ and IS of the 70-300 is much, much better than the 100-400. I have owned both and can say that from experience.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 18, 2012)

Harv said:


> With the resolution of the 70-300 L and the 5D3, you should be able to crop fairly deep if needed. The IQ and IS of the 70-300 is much, much better than the 100-400. I have owned both and can say that from experience.



+1

The 70-300L is much lighter and dhorter too


----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 18, 2012)

Harv said:


> criza said:
> 
> 
> > Why not get the Canon Extender 1.4x II or 2x III? 8)
> ...


Not a Canon extender, no, Canon "fixed" that. It does with the Kenko Pro range. Alas not had chance to compare with the 100-400 as mine is alas a rubbish copy. Others however on this forum have good copies so I think that I'm in a minority.

@OP - You're 200mm on the 50D gave you effective 320mm, with 1.4x converter then it gave you 448mm. If you need that sort of reach, then is it not more of a compare the 100-400mm with the 400mm f/5.6 and keep you're existing 70-200?


----------



## Zo0m (Apr 18, 2012)

Stu_bert said:


> Harv said:
> 
> 
> > criza said:
> ...




I Think criza meant an 1.4 extender to the 70-200f4. Which would actually make the fov similar to an 50d without extender...


----------



## lol (Apr 18, 2012)

At least for my samples, there is no significant difference in image quality between the 70-300L and 100-400L.

The choice then is what do you want more out of the remaining feature differences:
70-300L possible advantages:
- is smaller and lighter
- noticeably better IS system
- more weather resistant

100-400L possible advantages:
- 400mm!
- At close focus, the 70-300L seems to exhibit more focal length shrinkage than the 100-400L.
- The 70-300L focus varies as you zoom whereas the 100-400L is more constant.

Depending on preferences:
- Conventional twist zoom vs faster push-pull.

If you put a gun to my head and say pick one, I'd go for the 100-400L without hesitation. The IS isn't really much benefit since in many applications you need a fast shutter speed to prevent subject motion blur. Lack of weather sealing is why I added the 70-300L, but even without sealing the 100-400L can be used unprotected in moderate rain for quite some time before condensation forms on the internal lens elements, rendering it unusable until you dry it out. The push-pull zoom is a lot faster and more accurate to use if you want to keep up with a dynamic moving subject.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 18, 2012)

lol said:


> The push-pull zoom is a lot faster and more accurate to use if you want to keep up with a dynamic moving subject.



That is probably down to the individual - personally pulling the lens away from you face means you have to hold tight with the right hand which stops me adjusting the AF point dynamically

The extra weight is a hinderance when turning quickly


----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 18, 2012)

Zo0m said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Harv said:
> ...


Yup you're right, sorry to OP and thanks for highlighting. The 70-300mm L is a more recent lens. From what I have seen, quicker AF, better IS than 100-400mm. You're "used" to an effective reach of ~300mm, so I would add another option which is simply the 1.4x extender to give you the reach you had. And I've seen a review which said quality of the 70-200 with 1.4x and 70-300mm was close. If you don't need the range of 300mm, then the 70-200 without the 1.4x converter is sharper. The 1.4x might also defer your decision until a possible 100-400mm MK II appeared.

If you need 400mm reach, and want flexibility, then the 100-400mm is your option. I've not seen comparison on 400mm f/4 vs the 100-400mm if reach is your only concern and you have flexibility in positioning.

Of course, if you have a friendly dealer, then I am sure you could try the lenses outside their shop with moving vehicles and see which you prefer...?


----------



## lol (Apr 18, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> That is probably down to the individual - personally pulling the lens away from you face means you have to hold tight with the right hand which stops me adjusting the AF point dynamically


I use the 100-400L friction setting on the lowest possible, and I don't need to apply any more grip with my right hand than using any other lens even while zooming.

I'm probably biased though, as I'd estimate well over 50% of my lifetime shots with any camera system are with the 100-400L.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 18, 2012)

lol said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > That is probably down to the individual - personally pulling the lens away from you face means you have to hold tight with the right hand which stops me adjusting the AF point dynamically
> ...



Mine is with the twist zoom

With big hands like mine you can zoom and manual focus at the same time, not easy with a push pull ;D ;D


----------



## Renato (Apr 19, 2012)

lol said:


> ... Lack of weather sealing is why I added the 70-300L, but even without sealing the 100-400L can be used unprotected in moderate rain for quite some time before condensation forms on the internal lens elements, rendering it unusable until you dry it out. The push-pull zoom is a lot faster and more accurate to use if you want to keep up with a dynamic moving subject.



I have 100-400 and is excellent, I have own it for 3 years. Only BIG problem is rain. Be very careful, after drying mine out for 3 or four times (put lens in a bag with silica gel) it finally died! Sent it for repair and had to replace AF and USM for almost $300. So I love the lens but from now on I will use some cover or put it away if there is ANY mist or rain.


----------



## lol (Apr 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Mine is with the twist zoom
> 
> With big hands like mine you can zoom and manual focus at the same time, not easy with a push pull ;D ;D


I'm confused now, I thought you were talking about AF point selection on the body, but did you mean manual fine tuning the focus point on the lens? I don't do the latter since I tend to stick to servo, but wouldn't imagine it being that difficult on the 100-400L either since you only need to hold the lens in one place unlike having to reach for two on a twist.



Renato said:


> I have 100-400 and is excellent, I have own it for 3 years. Only BIG problem is rain. Be very careful, after drying mine out for 3 or four times (put lens in a bag with silica gel) it finally died! Sent it for repair and had to replace AF and USM for almost $300. So I love the lens but from now on I will use some cover or put it away if there is ANY mist or rain.


How quickly did it dry with that method? To dry mine I just leave mine in the open with lens caps off, and if fitted at the time, remove any front filter also since that isn't airtight without one. Usually that visibly dries out in a few hours. While silica gel is known for absorbing moisture, and therefore reducing humidity in close spaces, I wonder what its relative speed is like over open drying.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 19, 2012)

lol said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Mine is with the twist zoom
> ...



I was - when recomposing I change the AF point, zoom and manually focus at the same time (can't AF and change focal point at the same time  ). This approach avoids focus hunting.


----------



## LIsnap (Apr 19, 2012)

criza said:


> Why not get the Canon Extender 1.4x II or 2x III? 8)



This is an option I had not considered, thanks. Do you find the IQ acceptable with the Canon Extenders? Do they reduce the AF speed?


----------



## LIsnap (Apr 19, 2012)

Stu_bert said:


> Harv said:
> 
> 
> > criza said:
> ...



I do not have a 1.4x now, although that may be a good way to go to get back to an effective 280mm with the 70-200mm. I love primes and use them for indoor sports all the time. I'm sure the 400mm f/5.6 would provide better IQ, but with track I am finding that I really want a zoom to increase the number of shots I can take as the runners approach.


----------



## LIsnap (Apr 19, 2012)

Thanks for all the input everyone! There are excellent points on both sides, which makes the choice even harder. It is true that for my primary sports use the improved IS of the 70-300mm is not an issue so that would favor going for the extra reach of the 100-400mm. I am a little concerned with how sharp the lens really is at 400mm. That makes the suggestion to get the 1.4x extender and wait for the 100-400mm Mk II attractive. Except with recent updates canon seems to be charging at least $1K more for their updated lenses so cost does become a factor.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Apr 19, 2012)

LIsnap said:


> criza said:
> 
> 
> > Why not get the Canon Extender 1.4x II or 2x III? 8)
> ...



I own the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L, and the Canon 1.4x III extender. I previously owned the rev-1 70-200mm and the rev-2 1.4x. Have shot these on the 5D2 and the 7D. From my experience:

1) the rev-1 70-200mm and rev-2 1.4x extender combo was ok...not great, definite softness introduced by the extender
2) the rev-2 70-200mm and rev-3 1.4x extender are significantly better that #1 above, can be easily seen in the resulting shots, very acceptable IQ and sharpness
3) combo AF speed does slow down. In the 5D2 it sucks really bad that I don't want to use this combo with it. The 7D is a faster system and keeps up, but the number of bad trackings resulting in OOF shots increases by about 20%, shooting 8 fps. You will also notice when the AF slides off target and loses the AF lock, the camera will stop shooting until it acquires another focus lock. This happens more with the extender than without it.
4) 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L is sharper and much faster than either combo above. Very speedy on the 7D, locks AF, etc. Effective focal length is 480mm at the far end, a bit longer than the 70-200mm and 1.4x combo on the 7D.
5) the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II beats them all, BUT...... at f/5.6 and up the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L is pretty damn close that you'd be hard pressed to tell. Obviously the constant aperture and f/2.8 is the advantage of the 70-200mm. 

I just got the 5D3 but have not shot anything but a few test pops, and only with the 50mm f/1.2 L on it. I will be using that camera this weekend at a wedding (with the 5D2 and the 7D). Once I get a chance and I'm not so damn busy, I plan to try the 70-200mm w/wo the extender and the 70-300mm on it with the new AF system. 

To give it a workout, I'll be shooting equestrian jumping so the targets will be 10-40 yards away, moving at various speeds, parallel and towards/away from the camera, in different lighting directions, will have objects moving into and out of the foreground. It's a real test of any AF system and lens. When I get a 1Dx, I'll run this again.

When I'm done with the shooting, I'll post some results and include complete burst sequences at 6fps in a strip of shots, linked from my web site for anyone that wants to examine them.

Meantime are a few shots:

http://www.imagicphotography.com/Photography/Preview-Gallery/12384118_G8pMWH#!i=1240165276&k=GELoj&lb=1&s=A

^^^ Canon 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II and the 1.4x III extender, @ 280mm (by the lens not factoring the 1.6x crop of the 7D), f/4, 1/1000 sec, ISO 400.

http://www.imagicphotography.com/Photography/Preview-Gallery/12384118_G8pMWH#!i=1524536644&k=V2htfvm&lb=1&s=A

^^^ Canon 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II and the 1.4x III extender, @ 155mm (by the lens not factoring the 1.6x crop of the 7D), f/4.5, 1/1600 sec, ISO 3200 (yes this is ISO 3200 on the 7D).

http://www.imagicphotography.com/Photography/Preview-Gallery/12384118_G8pMWH#!i=1255559047&k=dWxFzLm&lb=1&s=A

^^^ Canon 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II, @ 70mm (by the lens not factoring the 1.6x crop of the 7D), f/2.8, 1/1600 sec, ISO 250, with a B&H circular polarizer (-1.3 stop loss).


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Apr 19, 2012)

Harv said:


> With the resolution of the 70-300 L and the 5D3, you should be able to crop fairly deep if needed. The IQ and IS of the 70-300 is much, much better than the 100-400. I have owned both and can say that from experience.



+1, it's the reason I got the 70-300mm as well, plus my prior comments on some AF slowness on the 70-200mm and 1.4x combo.

Now, if Canon does come out with new a 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS L lens, I will very likely take a close look at it. It will come down to that or a Canon 400mm f/5.6 L or possibly a Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS. I'm not sold on the DO version as I hear it's soft. For that price, I would likely be better off going with a used 400mm f/2.8 IS L rev-1 lens or even the 300mm f/2.8 IS L II with the 1.4x III extender that I own (if the 1Dx does not slow down it AF too much from the extender).


----------

