# 100-400mm vs. 70-300L for basically the same exact price used? Which one?



## birdman (May 11, 2012)

I know the 70-300L is newer and with better optics and IS system. I have the older 70-300 IS (non-L) and the 300mm IQ is pretty bad. The other option for me is the 70-200 F/4 IS, but after spending a week in San Diego, 200mm on the beach just may not cut it. 

I couldn't even get real close shots of bikini-clad women. Sorry if this offends anyone. I've seen sample shots of the 100-400 and they are very good. Same with the 70-300L. What I always hear is from 200mm to 300mm is not THAT noticeable. But from 200mm to 400mm is significantly longer, of course. What to do?


----------



## Random Orbits (May 11, 2012)

The 100-400 makes more sense because you are distance limited.


----------



## Act444 (May 11, 2012)

The difference between 200mm and 300mm seemed rather trivial when I first experimented at the camera store (seriously, it's like the equivalent of taking a small step forward)...but out in the field, it actually CAN make a difference. And the farther away your subject is, of course, the more difference you will notice. 

I chose the 70-300L over the 100-400 due to its higher image quality and lighter weight (win-win for me). I assumed I could possibly even crop the 300mm image to approximate 400mm and still get equivalent quality to what I would have gotten with the 100-400 at 400. 

But YMMV. I would try both and see. Basically, your choice will be between extra reach (100-400) and lighter weight (70-300). Also, remember the wide end as well. 70 vs 100 is quite a difference if you need to pull back.

Are you shooting 1.6x or full-frame? When maximum reach is needed, it is REALLY nice to have the 1.6x factor that an APS-C camera gives you.


----------



## traveller (May 11, 2012)

birdman said:


> I couldn't even get real close shots of bikini-clad women. Sorry if this offends anyone.



I take it this is a joke... If it isn't, then you seriously need to take a look in the mirror and decide whether you are a photographer or just a voyeuristic perv masquerading as one.


----------



## briansquibb (May 11, 2012)

traveller said:


> birdman said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't even get real close shots of bikini-clad women. Sorry if this offends anyone.
> ...



;D ;D ;D I am a voyeuristic perv masquerading as photographer ;D ;D ;D

: : : I need the good IS when taking beach shots handolding the 600 : : :


----------



## briansquibb (May 11, 2012)

The 70-300L gives excellent IQ and contrast thoughout its range


----------



## K-amps (May 12, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The 70-300L gives excellent IQ and contrast thoughout its range



I agree. I had a new 70-300L. sold it and got a 100-400L... kind of regret it. The IQ on the 70-300L is far ahead of the older 100-400L. The only problem is it does not take canon TC's... but will take Kenko etc


----------



## unfocused (May 12, 2012)

Well, I actually have both. Maybe seems a little crazy but they are very different lenses in my opinion. If your main interest is wildlife and birds, then the 100-400 is definitely the best choice. For an all-around long zoom that you can keep in your bag at all times, a 70-300mm is much more practical.

I wouldn't want to carry around the 100-400 all day, every day. The 70-300, while a substantial lens, is much easier to manage. So, as with most advice, it depends on what you intend to use the lens for.


----------



## ScottyP (May 12, 2012)

birdman said:


> I know the 70-300L is newer and with better optics and IS system. I have the older 70-300 IS (non-L) and the 300mm IQ is pretty bad. The other option for me is the 70-200 F/4 IS, but after spending a week in San Diego, 200mm on the beach just may not cut it.
> 
> I couldn't even get real close shots of bikini-clad women. Sorry if this offends anyone. I've seen sample shots of the 100-400 and they are very good. Same with the 70-300L. What I always hear is from 200mm to 300mm is not THAT noticeable. But from 200mm to 400mm is significantly longer, of course. What to do?


The answer is obvious. You need to either disguise yourself as a bikini-clad girl to get in closer, or you need to construct some sort of "girl blind" to conceal yourself in. 
Or, perhaps you could actually MEET a girl and then you could have her permission to photograph her. :-*


----------



## briansquibb (May 12, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> The answer is obvious. You need to either disguise yourself as a bikini-clad girl to get in closer



Now that would get me locked away ...... or I would have to have an all over waxing and shave the beard off :-[ :-[ :-[


----------



## ScottyP (May 12, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is obvious. You need to either disguise yourself as a bikini-clad girl to get in closer
> ...


Do let us know if/when you decide to do it, though; it would make a great photo-op!


----------



## scottkinfw (May 12, 2012)

A girl with a beard?



briansquibb said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is obvious. You need to either disguise yourself as a bikini-clad girl to get in closer
> ...


----------



## lol (May 12, 2012)

Owning both currently, there isn't any real difference in optical quality between them that I can see (on 7D) and I wouldn't worry about that. I'll happily use either at any focal length wide open, when the only time I stop down is if I need more depth of field.

It was mentioned the difference between 200-300mm didn't appear great, that could well be the case if tested at relatively close focus. The 70-300L does suffer from noticeable focal length shrinkage when close focusing, where I can't say I noticed any on the 100-400L.

Aside from that, the differences are pretty much well known, with the 70-300L having the newer IS system, better sealing, and being much smaller and lighter. The 100-400L gets you the extra reach, and love it or hate it, you have the pump action zoom. If you put a gun to my head and say I could only have one of these, I'd pick the 100-400L without hesitation.


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (May 12, 2012)

I had the 100-400 and sold it to get the 300 f2.8 and the 70-300L. The 300f2.8 is amazing and is my go to lens when I want the big gun since it takes the 1.4x and 2x well. I'm much happier with the 70-300L as the walk around lens, lighter, sharper, smaller. I did not get sharp pics with the 100-400 at 400mm, but it may be just me.

I wouldn't recommend the 300f2.8 as a snooping lens for taking biniki-clad women though as it is VERY obvious. You definitely need a girl blind to conceal it


----------



## briansquibb (May 12, 2012)

Lnguyen1203 said:


> I had the 100-400 and sold it to get the 300 f2.8 and the 70-300L. The 300f2.8 is amazing and is my go to lens when I want the big gun since it takes the 1.4x and 2x well. I'm much happier with the 70-300L as the walk around lens, lighter, sharper, smaller. I did not get sharp pics with the 100-400 at 400mm, but it may be just me.
> 
> I wouldn't recommend the 300f2.8 as a snooping lens for taking biniki-clad women though as it is VERY obvious. You definitely need a girl blind to conceal it



I got 70-300L then ungraded the 7F to a 1D4 so got a 400 f/2.8.

I am now hooked on the large whites  My 1DS3 now has a 200 f/2 glued on - very, very sharp and so much contrast from this combo! Taking portraits is SO good and easy

My walkabout is the 1D4 with 70-300 ;D


----------



## winoheel (May 12, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Well, I actually have both. Maybe seems a little crazy but they are very different lenses in my opinion. If your main interest is wildlife and birds, then the 100-400 is definitely the best choice. For an all-around long zoom that you can keep in your bag at all times, a 70-300mm is much more practical.
> 
> I wouldn't want to carry around the 100-400 all day, every day. The 70-300, while a substantial lens, is much easier to manage. So, as with most advice, it depends on what you intend to use the lens for.



...Same for me! This post says it all....


----------



## birdman (May 13, 2012)

I am OP: To answer some of your questions and comments, it was pretty much intended as a joke. there was a Kim Kardashian clone at Mission beach in San Diego and she was photographed by another photographer (he was a hired gun I assume). I had to see what all the fuss was about and snapped a couple myself. 

Sorry, I am a 30-something male and still find women attractive. I have had plenty of girlfriends/flings so no need to explain myself either. But some of your comments were funny. Cheers.


----------



## birdman (May 14, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> birdman said:
> 
> 
> > I am OP: To answer some of your questions and comments, it was pretty much intended as a joke.
> ...



That's just damn rude my friend. If you'd read, the only joke intended was concerning bikinis. I wanted serious advice. Go back to your dark dungeon, evil one!!


----------



## birdman (May 14, 2012)

You win, Marsu42. Not a troll, and will be clearer next time. BTW, what telephoto did you have before the 70-300L ? I am about to get rid of my (non-L) 70-300 and 100 macro. Thanks


----------



## Marsu42 (May 14, 2012)

birdman said:


> You win, Marsu42. Not a troll, and will be clearer next time. BTW, what telephoto did you have before the 70-300L ? I am about to get rid of my (non-L) 70-300 and 100 macro. Thanks



Ok. I had a legacy 100-300 USM from the good ol' days which did ok on analog, and I used it for quick macro with a macro filter. But on the long end the sharpness on 18mp is so bad at open aperture it's better to use my 100mm macro (!) lens for tele and then crop - my old lens now has its well earned place in my "hall of fame" cupboard with my eos rt.

That's why I'd always recommend a "real" tele (starting with 70-300L or 70-200/f4 if 200mm is enough) or none at all. There are said to be some ok 3rd party teles, but I didn't try these because the ring usm af on the Canons is very good and this is important on tele range with a small depth of field, while it doesn't matter that much to a midrange zoom used at f4 to f8.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 16, 2012)

my question is do you need the zoom?

the 300 f4L IS is a really sweet option too and can be had second hand for around $800
put a 1.4 Tc on this and you have 420mm @f5.6 with IS
its a really nice weight and balance on any camera very nice IQ too

@300mm its a full stop faster than the other 2 lenses you mentioned

worth considering as an option

if i need the zoom i'll tend to go with my 70-200 I typically find at the longer focal length you are chasing all the reach you can get so the longer primes work well

of course there is also the 70-200 f2.8L with a 2x TC giving you 140-400 f5.6 as an option that includes zoom 
more expensive though


----------



## AJ (May 16, 2012)

Get the 100-400. It sounds like you need a bigger Canon


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 16, 2012)

I like my Canon 100-400mm L, and on my FF and my 1D MK IV, its very good at 400mm. For a crop camera, the 100-300mm L might be a very good choice.


----------



## degies (May 23, 2012)

Quick question
When comparing the 100-400 to the 70-300 I am told the 100-400 does not have AF when you stick on the 2xTC. 
Is that the case? :-\


----------



## briansquibb (May 23, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I like my Canon 100-400mm L, and on my FF and my 1D MK IV, its very good at 400mm. For a crop camera, the 100-300mm L might be a very good choice.



On a ff the 70-300 is an excellent choice as a walkabout. It has better IS and better IQ - just loses out on the reach.


----------



## lol (May 23, 2012)

degies said:


> Quick question
> When comparing the 100-400 to the 70-300 I am told the 100-400 does not have AF when you stick on the 2xTC.
> Is that the case? :-\


The 100-400L x2 doesn't phase AF through the viewfinder, but the camera does contrast AF in live view.


----------



## Southernclicks (May 23, 2012)

I have both.... Tough call. The 100-400 is my old standby. Does a great job BUT..... the 70-300L has a great IS system that is VERY impressive. I shoot wildlife and when I'm just walking around in the woods the 70-300L would be my choice to carry around all day..... 70-300 has a lock that keeps the lens "short". The 100-400 tends to slide out and gets awkward to carry around. Yeah, you can tighten the 100-400 up and lock it down but then it's a two handed action to loosen it up. Both are great and both will serve you well. Until I can turn loose of one I think I'll keep both. If I could have only one I'd buy the 70-300L.....


----------



## fsu_dan17 (May 23, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> my question is do you need the zoom?
> 
> the 300 f4L IS is a really sweet option too and can be had second hand for around $800
> put a 1.4 Tc on this and you have 420mm @f5.6 with IS
> ...




Would you say the image quality of the 70-200 f2.8 L II w/ 2x TC is better than the 100-400? The reason I ask is I am really considering the 70-200 f2.8L II but I am also considering the reach of something in the 400mm range because I like to shoot wildlife. I had been considering the 100-400, 300 f4 IS, and the 400 f5.6 but I really like the IQ and build quality of the 70-200 but I already have that range covered for the most part so I would probably us it alot with a TC attached.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2012)

fsu_dan17 said:


> Would you say the image quality of the 70-200 f2.8 L II w/ 2x TC is better than the 100-400?



I wouldn't say that - the 70-200 II + 2x TC is decent, but falls a little short of the 100-400mm @ 400mm for IQ. Also, the 2x TC slows the AF speed by 75%, which may be an issue for some types of shooting.


----------



## fsu_dan17 (May 23, 2012)

what about the 300 f4 IS with 1.4 tC compared to 100-400 and the 400 f5.6? Basically I love the flex of a zoom but I know that primes have better IQ so I am trying to minimize IQ loss and purchase a zoom. I think a prime at that range wouldn't see as much use all around, besides I can always rent.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2012)

fsu_dan17 said:


> what about the 300 f4 IS with 1.4 tC compared to 100-400 and the 400 f5.6? Basically I love the flex of a zoom but I know that primes have better IQ so I am trying to minimize IQ loss and purchase a zoom. I think a prime at that range wouldn't see as much use all around, besides I can always rent.



I went through the same decision process some time back, and picked the 100-400mm. At 400mm, I'd rank the IQ as 400/5.6 > 100-400 > 300/4+1.4x. I don't think it's a generally good idea to get a lens plus TC and plan to use it with the TC primarily - TCs are for occasional use. I picked the 100-400mm over the 400/5.6 because of the IS (not needed for fast-moving subjects, but for static subjects with an f/5.6 lens at 400mm, having IS can be a big help), and also for the flexibility of the zoom.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (May 23, 2012)

I'm fortunate to own both and have used both in similar situations. The 70-300L is extremely light, focuses fast and is tack sharp. The 100-400 has a longer reach, is considerably larger, heavier and focuses much slower. 
Neither of these lenses function well with a teleconverter from Canon or Kenko.

I used both of these for active sports outdoors and both served their intended purposed well. I found that I used the 70-300L more since it covered the range I needed most and it was sharper and lighter than the 100-400.

Cons: 70-300L uses a 67mm filter and if you intend to use a step-up filter for any filter larger, like 77mm, its very difficult to use this in the field IF you are using the lens hood.

Price wise, they are very close. Rent them both first if you can to get the feel and experience the IQ of each.

Good luck.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 23, 2012)

MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> Neither of these lenses function well with a teleconverter from Canon or Kenko.



... to be precise: Canon doesn't fit (or destroys your lens), but the Kenko works but you have to af at f8 which doesn't work with all bodies. It does with the 7d and 60d, but at least with the latter it's only for static objects in good light and you have to shoot a couple of pictures in case the af missed. But it works, and the iq is ok.



MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> Cons: 70-300L uses a 67mm filter and if you intend to use a step-up filter for any filter larger, like 77mm, its very difficult to use this in the field IF you are using the lens hood.



Have you actually tried it? I haven't got 77mm filters, but the hood of the 70-300L has some space in it that looks like it's exactly designed to let it be used with 77mm, too. But you'd have to screw it on when the hood is already on.


----------



## DanoPhoto (May 23, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> MARKOE PHOTOE said:
> 
> 
> > Neither of these lenses function well with a teleconverter from Canon or Kenko.
> ...


 

this confuses me...are you referring to the Canon TC?


----------



## Marsu42 (May 23, 2012)

DanoPhoto said:


> this confuses me...are you referring to the Canon TC?



yup, the Canon tc only fits a couple of lenses while the Kenko fits all ef, but isn't weather-sealed.


----------



## pj1974 (May 24, 2012)

I own the 70-300L and have used the 100-400L also. They are more different lenses than their numbers suggest. The 100-400mm is more of a 'bird specialist' and often focal length limited answer, whereas the 70-300mm is more of a general purpose telephoto zoom.

For me, the choice to go 70-300L was mainly on its much superior portability. Furthermore for most of my telephoto shots, 300mm on my Canon 7D (equivalent to 480mm in FF / 35mm format) was sufficiently.

The 70-300L does have much better IS (4 stops vs 2 stops on the 100-400L) which does make a lot of difference. I don't like the 100-400L's pull-zoom action.

Good copies of both lenses can produce great photos when used by experienced and knowledgeable users. Though I would say that on the whole, the 70-300L has superior IQ (mine is particularly sharp and contrasty at all focal lengths, even wide open).

If I only had a FF camera - then the 70-300L wouldn't probably be enough reach for more of my needs. I have recently used a 5DmkIII and the difference from 1.6x crop to FF is remarkable, so I would be 'stuck' - because I'm not so keen on the size and handling of the 100-400L. But with my 7D, the 70-300L does the 'trick' - even making a handy candid / portrait lens.

I really appreciate how good the 70-300L is as a travel combination with my 7D and 15-85mm lens. I fit both in my shoulder LowePro bag often when I'm out taking photos. And I can shoot all day with this 2 lens combination.

Hope my perspective is helpful. 8)
Paul


----------



## bycostello (May 24, 2012)

you answer your own question, you want 400mm on a crop sensor.... not sure about the stalking though!


----------



## bionutcase (May 24, 2012)

I have the 100-400mm and use on my 7D. I love it particularly for small objects from long distance - birds and small animals. Bikinis? I think I'd go with 70-300 unless you want to get navel shots!


----------



## bycostello (May 26, 2012)

but the 100-400 is a push pull zoom i think, sucks dust into the camera


----------



## Marsu42 (May 26, 2012)

bycostello said:


> but the 100-400 is a push pull zoom i think, sucks dust into the camera



All non-internal zooms sucks in air when zoomed out, how else would it work? By creating lower pressure inside the lens - that would be news to me. If you don't want this, get an internal zoom like the 70-200, but the downside is that they are as long when zoomed in as zoomed out, so it's bad for transport and carrying around.


----------



## Kiboko (May 26, 2012)

I should know! Had a 400mm f5.6L prime which I traded in for a 2.8L and which I regretted instantly. Far too big and heavy and wide open depth of field was too minimal so I found myself stopping down to about f4 all the time. Traded it in and bought a 400mm f4 DO. Still too big and heavy with a lens hood like a waste-paper bin. Traded it in and bought a 100-400mm zoom which I had for about 5 years. Still heavy, didn't mind push-pull zoom though, only 2 stops IS. THEN Canon bought out the 70-300mm L. Smaller/lighter/conventional zoom, over 400mm in 35mm terms on my 7D, - very very sharp, - 4 stops IS, NO CONTEST! 100-400mm zoom goes - swapped it for another (back to square one) 400mm f5.6L prime, for when and IF I need longer reach. I'm not bothered about lack of IS as it's use will be safari photography from a vehicle using support.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 26, 2012)

Kiboko said:


> THEN Canon bought out the 70-300mm L. Smaller/lighter/conventional zoom, over 400mm in 35mm terms on my 7D, - very very sharp, - 4 stops IS, NO CONTEST!



It's really funny to see how the 70-300L gains reputation. When I first researched what tele lens to get, I was not the only one to think this zoom is a rip-off: no Canon tc usable, only 4-5.6 (vs. primes or the 70-200L) and only up to 300 (vs. 100-400), while there are Canon and 3rd party alternatives that are way cheaper. But it just has the right ingredients for a walkaround tele zoom, I have to give it to Canon, they knew what they were doing here.


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (May 27, 2012)

I too had a100 -400 and I could get sharp pictures up to 300mm, but not at 400mm. May be it is just me, but I traded it in for the 70-300 for a walk around teleconverter zoom and a 300 f2.8 plus 1.4x and 2x for longer focal lengths. Just got back from 3 day at Yellowstone and these combos worked well for me. Most of the time, I shot with the 300f2.8 and the 1.4x or 2x with images of bears, pronghorn, coyotes, birds, and a few wolves. For closer range I used the 70-300. The 70-300 is sharper than the 100-400 up to 300 mm and the 300mmf2.8 plus 1.4x is. Just a fantastic lens. I could shoot handheld, from vehicle, or with a tripod for longer distance work. Today I walked around the local park and shot a Northern Harriet at 25 yards with the 70-300 and was very pleased with it. I had a harder time getting similar results with the 100-400 at the same distance.


----------



## bvukich (May 27, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> The answer is obvious. You need to either disguise yourself as a bikini-clad girl to get in closer, or you need to construct some sort of "girl blind" to conceal yourself in.
> Or, perhaps you could actually MEET a girl and then you could have her permission to photograph her. :-*



I must have some sort of innate Jedi-ninja girl blind skills... my whole life I've always been completely invisible to them.


----------



## UrbanImages (May 27, 2012)

Having rented a 100-400 and owning a 70-300L, I would take the 70-300L all day over the 100-400. Lighter, shorter, better IS and tack sharp throughout. I just did a long weekend in Detroit, doing some "urban pioneering" including about 23 building fires. I had my 70-200 2.8L nonIS on my 7D and after the 2nd night fire I changed it for the 70-300. Never put the 70-200 back on. Images were sharper than my 24-70L which was on my 5DII. I highly recommend the 70-300L, truly a sleeper in Canon's L series lineup.


----------



## deletemyaccount (May 27, 2012)

Can't say I've owned the 100-400 but I use my 70-300 frequently and find it to be very contrasty, sharp with great IS (4-stop) but the deciding point might be the reach and when used with a full frame, the 100-400 might be more appealing. Don't listen to the myth about the push pull being a vacuum. I hear its a perpetuated myth.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2012)

bvukich said:


> I must have some sort of innate Jedi-ninja girl blind skills... my whole life I've always been completely invisible to them.



That might change if they spotted you staring at them in public, holding your big, long...ummm...lens in your hands.


----------



## westr70 (May 27, 2012)

I don't have the 300 but I love the 100 - 400mm. It's so good for birds and I use it all the time handheld for BIF. Can't beat it in my book.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > I must have some sort of innate Jedi-ninja girl blind skills... my whole life I've always been completely invisible to them.
> ...



Long, short, it's still in your hands, lol.


----------



## pknight (Jun 14, 2012)

Interesting conversation. I don't have the 70-300, but I have used the 100-400 for six years, on a variety of crop bodies. As suggested by others, this is great for birds, which is about all I use it for (although I shoot a lot of bird pics). My copy is razor sharp at 400mm, which is where I have it 99% of the time.

While true that you have 480mm FF equivalent reach with the 70-300 on a crop body, you have 640mm equivalent with the 100-400. For serious birding without the money for a prime, this difference is substantial and worth any hassle stemming from the greater weight of the 100-400.

Rumors about a new 100-400 are very interesting, and if that pans out it will be what I replace my current long zoom with.


----------



## alan_k (Jun 14, 2012)

I have the 70-300L- really like the size and weight, and the IS is amazing. Very sharp and fast to focus in most cases. It is wide enough to be useful for portraits, tight landscape shots, etc. It is sharp enough that I'm usually able to crop with no problem. I think the only time I've felt like the extra reach of the 100-400 would be worth it is when photographing very distant, small animals (birds), when they are small enough that AF can't figure out what I'm pointing at. These aren't going to be great photos no matter what, but it takes me longer to get the shot since I have to try focus manually.

If you are always shooting small, far away things, the 100-400 is probably a good call. If you want more flexibility, maybe look at the 70-300L.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 15, 2012)

Semi-off-topic but may be of some use. I was debating heavily between similar options (and was also heavily considering a 70-300 DO which I still would love to give a good test, especially on something like a 5DIII, etc., with it's great low-light performance, this lens can be found used for fairly cheap) -overall I needed smaller, lighter and faster as requirements. Ultimately I ended up getting a mint but used 135L which on my 7D gets me to 216 @f/2 and when combined with a mint, used, 1.4x converter gets me to 302.4 @f/2.8, when used on my full frame it's a regular 135 or 189 with extender which realistically is when I will likely just opt switch it to the 7D without extender for the extra stop of light, but would like to test more to see what practical difference in DOF and IQ is for times when I don't need the extra light.

It doesn't have the same ease of use/practicality as a 70-200 or 70-300 zoom lens would, but... combined with my 24-70 which is my main lens, I more or less have a decent portion of the same range basically covered (missing the 85mm and 100mm which if space ever allows, which currently it doesn't, would be filled with the 85L and 100L IS Macro), on top of this it's very light, fairly small, especially without the extender. The quality is quite good. It's a less obvious, black lens, and I hockey taped the extender to match and it has speed. At worst this combo is an f/2.8 @302.4mm, at best it's a 216mm @f/2. It's intended purpose is for night-time photo-journalistic style and street photography, allowing me to get in close while being far away. So far, with limited experience in testing this setup (I got it rather recently), it can get great results, even in extremely low-light, but is no-where near as easy to use as a 24-70 or any other zoom. I mean, it's a different range of photography, being tele, and it's a prime, but basically I'm just warning, if you want to try this setup for any of it's potential benefits, it's not the easiest style, at least not immediately.

Also, it lacks IS, which I make up for with shutter speed and raising the ISO. I'll edit this post and upload a shot or two from my first run with it in a bit.

-----







Canon 7D, 135L @f/4.5, ISO 4000, Shutter 1/80, Effective Focal Length: 216mm 

*Very weird glitch! (the bottom picture, the duller color wise of the two, is possibly a forum upload glitch??). The picture I posted here, has completely different color than as the file I uploaded. Even if I re-download and view it in the same image viewer it still has improper color vs. the original before uploading... Somehow uploading it to Canon Rumors changed the .jpg file? I'll put it on a different site so you can hopefully see the difference, very, very weird???? Here, same picture, different upload site, very different results: http://minus.com/mnmBys4cH/1f*






Canon 7D, 135L + 1.4x Ext MKII, @f/2.8, ISO 6400, Shutter 1/320, Effective Focal Length: 302.4mm


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> and was also heavily considering a 70-300 DO which I still would love to give a good test, especially on something like a 5DIII, etc., with it's great low-light performance, this lens can be found used for fairly cheap



I bought one used, with the idea that it's small size and good range would make it a great combo with the 24-105 (the two lenses are identical in size). I wasn't happy with the IQ of the 70-300 DO, and ultimately I sold it (for the same price I bought). Even with boosting the contrast and sharpness in post, it wasn't up to the quality of my other lenses. Side note, the zoom creep was pretty bad.

I'm still considering the 70-300L as a convenient adjunct to my 100-400, though.


----------



## DianeK (Jun 15, 2012)

I really like my 70-300L and it basically lives on my 7D. Color and contrast are great and the images it produces can withstand heavy cropping. Both images below are _substantial_ crops, especially the lichen. But as you can see, if it wasn't for the noise from the 7D sensor, when tromping in the woods you can get away with just this one lens and be able to do plant closeups in addition to birds/wildlife.
Diane


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > and was also heavily considering a 70-300 DO which I still would love to give a good test, especially on something like a 5DIII, etc., with it's great low-light performance, this lens can be found used for fairly cheap
> ...



That's mostly what I ended up figuring, and also saw it had some problems with flare. Still, it's used price is no-where-near it's listed -as new price, while the 70-300L's used price is your regular discount off the new product price. I've seen good results with the DO, with some consideration to it's inherent limitations, I believe I could make such a lens work, but I think it's aperture might be slightly slow for my purposes without a low-light 5DIII monster or the like to pair it with... You obviously had the same idea and tried it all out first hand, still it feels like a really good value, albeit a compromise with some additional annoyances. The zoom creep would probably be even more annoying in reality than I can even imagine.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> The zoom creep would probably be even more annoying in reality than I can even imagine.



Let's just say that when I was shooting a bird that left his perch and flew overhead, I was glad didn't end up with a black eye from the eycup as the extended zoom slammed back into the barrel as I pointed the camera vertically while tracking the bird overhead.


----------



## AJ (Jun 15, 2012)

DianeK said:


>



This photo proves that the lens is really good for shooting chicks.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 15, 2012)

AJ said:


> DianeK said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Don't forget chicks playing in water.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2012)

Those chicks don't seem to be wearing clothes...


----------



## DianeK (Jun 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Those chicks don't seem to be wearing clothes...



Obviously in the future I will have to be careful to post images that aren't as easily, how shall I say, subject to "interpretation" :
Diane


----------



## t.linn (Jun 15, 2012)

birdman said:


> I know the 70-300L is newer and with better optics and IS system. I have the older 70-300 IS (non-L) and the 300mm IQ is pretty bad. The other option for me is the 70-200 F/4 IS, but after spending a week in San Diego, 200mm on the beach just may not cut it.
> 
> I couldn't even get real close shots of bikini-clad women. Sorry if this offends anyone. I've seen sample shots of the 100-400 and they are very good. Same with the 70-300L. What I always hear is from 200mm to 300mm is not THAT noticeable. But from 200mm to 400mm is significantly longer, of course. What to do?



First, I want to thank you for all the great responses your "bikini-clad women" comment has generated... ;D

I don't doubt that the 70-300L is going to yield better IQ than the 100-400L. That said, the 100-400L is decent too and will definitely blow away your previous non-L 70-300. For me the question comes down to weight vs need. You might consider renting the 100-400L for a weekend and seeing if the extra reach justifies the extra weight.

I tend to use the 100-400L close to my vehicle. If I'm walking any significant distance there is no chance the 100-400 is making the trip. This is particularly true in heat and humidity so, as I am planning a trip to Costa Rica's Pacific coast, I'm dealing with this same question: Should I take my 100-400L or buy a 70-300L? I know from my last trip there that the 300-400mm range would be VERY useful...assuming the lens is with me and not back in a hotel room because I'm not in the mood (or condition) to lug it around. Ideally, Canon will reduce the weight of the 100-400L II to something I can carry while keeping the price down to something I can afford and delivering it within my lifetime. Since I don't see any of that happening, I have a feeling I will be purchasing the 70-300L and leaving my 100-400 at home...probably.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 15, 2012)

DianeK said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Those chicks don't seem to be wearing clothes...
> ...



Sorry Diane, Neuro is a bad influence on me. 8)


----------

