Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2125 times:
I am contimplating selling my recently purchased Canon 75-300 IS lens and buying a 100-400L IS lens. However, I am now reconsidering...
After reading the specs on the 100-400 I realized that the max apeture value is the same as the 75-300! (4.5/5.6).
So should I still consider this upgrade, or just stick with what I have?
I really need someone to "sell" me on this one, because I am starting to doubt the sanity of my plan....
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35 Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2109 times:
Depends what you want to use it for. If it's aviation photography, the aperture shouldn't really be dropping below F7.1-F8.0 if you're at the long end of either lens, because you loose a little sharpness.
You'll get some great quality pictures with the 100-400, but it's alot of money - ask yourself if you really need it.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2106 times:
Quoting Sulman (Reply 1): If it's aviation photography
It's safe to say that since I'm in the aviation photography forum, that this is what I will be using it for...
I more concerned about the speed of the lens. I usually shoot around f8 or f9. So if the 100-400 doesn't really offer me any advantage in this area over the lens that I currently own...why should I buy it?
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2094 times:
Is the autofocus any faster on the 100-400 than the 75-300?
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35 Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2093 times:
AF is much quicker, and silent. IS is a little more complex than the 75-300, and is on both horizontal and vertical plane; I think the 75-300 only uses vertical.
If you're not sure, see if you can rent one - it will give you a good idea whether you like it or not.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2056 times:
I thought that the IS worked in both planes on the 75-300 and with the more 'technical' lenses you had the option of just having it in the vertical direction for panning shots.
Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2158 posts, RR: 22 Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2055 times:
Not that this is the best route but I am considering the 70-200L IS 2.8, you and as well add a 1.4x converter for the range that I currently get with my 75-300.... I think that the 2.8 and the 70mm will be perfect for all conditions and applications, if i need something shorter, I have the 17-40L 4.0 in the case...,
I am going to add the 100-400L IS later on... in a few years....
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2036 times:
Wow, thanks for all the positive input and advice!
Getting back to my original question:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Thread starter): So should I still consider this upgrade, or just stick with what I have?
Am I going to really see an improvement in quality and performance big enough to make me feel justified in an upgrade from the 75-300 to the 100-400?
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2020 times:
Quoting Sulman (Reply 11): consider going for the 300mm F4 LIS prime,
Consider the 300mm f2.8 prime, now that is THE alternative.
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Thread starter): I really need someone to "sell" me on this one, because I am starting to doubt the sanity of my plan....
Go rent one and spend a day with it....you'll be online with an order shortly after you return the rental to the shop.
Fly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1981 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 10): Am I going to really see an improvement in quality and performance big enough to make me feel justified in an upgrade from the 75-300 to the 100-400?
You WILL see the difference. I recently upgraded from the 75-300mm to 100-400L IS and the pictures just look much better. I also have a few shots at full focal length and there's no comparison to my old lens. I never shot at more than 200mm with the old lens because it just ruined the whole shot. You will feel justified
Paulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1948 times:
One word. YES. The auto focus is a lot faster and also the picture are really a lot sharper then 75-300 MM. Although as I hear not as sharp as the 70-200 MM L with th 1.4X. It all comes down to how far away your subject is. Like in ATL you would be switching back and forth between the extender and with out.
The 100-400 lens is a must upgrade.
Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
Jkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
Hey,
I was in this situation exactly this time last year, and I made the jump for the 100-400. I was blown away with this lens! I can suggest making this move, you will not be disappointed that's for certain.
Good luck with your choice, you know it makes sense.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2158 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1044 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
