Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should I Trade My 75-300 For A 100-400?  
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3653 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....

Thanks, JD

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3637 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.


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3634 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?


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3626 times:

The optics and build quality are better.


It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3767 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

You will not ever go back to normal glass if you had a L lens before.
I'd go for it, if I would need a second 100-400L...  Smile



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3622 times:

Is the autofocus any faster on the 100-400 than the 75-300?

User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 32
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3621 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.


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 973 posts, RR: 31
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Don't forget the 28-300mm L, you might find you will do more with the 28-75mm than you would with the 300-400mm gained.


G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3584 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.

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3583 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....



Drive it like you stole it!
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3564 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?


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

The lens is consistently strong at 300-400mm; can be a touch soft at 400mm, but you're shooting through alot of air at that length anyway.

It's more than adequate for this hobby, it's pretty much the lens most Canon-using aviation photographers aspire to anyway.

If it spends most of it's life at 300-400mm, consider going for the 300mm F4 LIS prime, that's another alternative.

James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3548 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.


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1060 posts, RR: 33
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3529 times:

Exactly what Jeff said.
The differnece in quality is light years and you will never look back.
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3509 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  Wink

Ivan


User currently offlinePaulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3476 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3460 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.

Best Regards,
Justin  Smile

------------------------------
Justin Wood - Woof Photography


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sigma 70-300 / Canon 75-300 For 300D posted Mon Mar 8 2004 22:31:04 by MartinairYYZ
Canon 100-400 Or 300 L Or 400 L? posted Sat May 13 2006 00:37:44 by LHRSIMON
Canon 28-300 Is USM Vs. 100-400 Is USM posted Wed Sep 28 2005 19:16:27 by Stefan
My 100-400 Is Totally Screwed Again! posted Mon Aug 29 2005 10:01:29 by Jkw777
Recommended Tripod For 10D + 100-400. posted Fri Aug 5 2005 21:27:01 by Stu1978
300 F4+1.4 Vs 100-400 posted Wed Mar 30 2005 23:56:34 by LHSebi
Which Canon 75-300 Lens Should I Get? posted Fri Nov 12 2004 04:22:46 by Dlx737200
My First Canon 100-400 Is Photos posted Fri Apr 2 2004 00:43:54 by Woody001
Canon Converter 1,4x With 100-400 L Is F/5,6 posted Tue Aug 15 2006 19:35:56 by Coninpa
EF 75-300 Vs EF 75-300 USM posted Tue Aug 1 2006 06:08:47 by NicolasRubio