chriswade From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 75 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4838 times:
ok so i bought the 70-300L IS USM and i love it! but now im wishing i had more distance! so stick with the 70-300 or go the 100-400? ive heard the quality and sharpness is less in the 100-400 and obviously you cant go any lower than 100mm but you get the extra 100mm and can be used with the 1.4 extender! grrrr im so torn between the 2
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4772 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4838 times:
Well, the 100-400 can get quite soft at the long end so in many situations I never felt comfortable going over 300. The IS system on the 70-300 is far superior allowing you to use it comfortably in less light. I never had much success with TCs on the 100-400. You need a lot of light and not sure about the 1.4 but with the 2x you lose AF.
I'd stick with the 70-300L.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
NPeterman From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4838 times:
I'm not advocating jumping ship from the 70-300L per se, but I have shot with my 100-400 on bodies ranging from entry-level Rebels up to a 7D now, and while it is no EF 400mm F2.8, I have never hesitated to zoom out all the way out to 400mm for a shot. Assuming you have it stopped down a bit (F7.1-F9) it has always done just fine for me. I know some people have had issues like crazy with their copies, and I was one of them for a while, but after micro-adjusting the AF, I was golden.
I have heard the 70-300L is quite nice however. Don't bother with converters on the 100-400, it's a lost cause. You're better off getting a EF 400mm F5.6 and cropping at that point, which I did when the 100-400 was misbehaving, although I rarely use it nowadays
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 9799 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4838 times:
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 3): Ask yourself how much you shoot in the 70-100mm range and if you'd benefit more from having either the 30mm at the wide end or 100mm at the tele end.
Agreed. But also keep in mind that a 30mm difference between 70 and 100 is a magnification factor of 1.43, while a 100mm difference between 300 and 400 is a magnification factor of 1.33. So 30mm at the short end makes more of a difference, zoom-wise, than 100mm at the long end, though it's pretty close. Ultimately it's up to you and what you need.
Wait, just to check, you have the 70-300 IS USM, or the 70-300 L IS USM? I ask because I read your post wrongly the first time.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.