Itay747 From Israel, joined Aug 2012, 27 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
I am selling my beloved 70-200. I have a dilemma with choosing my next bigger lens. I have heard and seen the 70-300L, it's sharper than the 100-400L but that extra 100 is vital! The 100-400 is a but softer than the 70-300 but it has a great range. Your suggestions? I am thinking about buying the 100-400, considering 300mm isn't that much of a different from a 200.
CaptainKramer From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 156 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1474 times:
Hi Italy 747,
Are you talking about the Canon Zoom Lens? I just bought the Canon 100-400mm and if I could do it all over again I would buy the Canon 70-300mm f2.8 in a heart beat. The extra 100mm is not vital, plus the extra 30mm at the wide end always helps. But the extra sharpness is vital, and you can make up the loss in range by cropping the image in post, without any noticeable difference when all is said and done. Sharpness of the lens is very important. Plus you are shooting through less atmosphere with a shorter focal length.
But the biggest difference you will notice at the end of a day of shooting, wont be the slightly shorter focal length, your arms will thank you. That 100-400mm has some serious weight packed into it.
Edit : Another thing I forgot to mention, is that if you use a camera with a cropped sensor, you will get extra focal length free of charge, I'm not certain of the exact extra length, but it all helps.
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2575 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1463 times:
Quoting Itay747 (Thread starter): I am thinking about buying the 100-400, considering 300mm isn't that much of a different from a 200.
Before deciding on the lens, I would ask myself the question, what focal lengths do I need? Do you need 300mm? Do you need 400mm? Is 100mm too much? Once you've answered those questions, you'll have a pretty good idea which will be better for your particular needs. Personally, I find the 100-400 too long at the short end. If you currently use the 70-200 regularly in the 70-100mm range, you may miss it with the 100-400. Just a few things for you to think about.
Whichever you go for, both are great lenses. I very nearly parted with some of my hard earned for a 70-300 L in January, but managed to get me 50-500 repaired (after 3 attempts!).
Darren
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8214 posts, RR: 28 Reply 4, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1432 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 2): Before deciding on the lens, I would ask myself the question, what focal lengths do I need? Do you need 300mm? Do you need 400mm? Is 100mm too much? Once you've answered those questions, you'll have a pretty good idea which will be better for your particular needs.
Exactly.
Also keep in mind that there's a larger difference between 200 and 300mm than there is between 300 and 400mm. 1.5x zoom ratio versus 1.33x zoom ratio. 100mm sounds like a lot, but it really isn't when you get far enough out there.
The short end might make more of a difference - 70mm to 100mm is a 1.43x ratio.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 9, posted (2 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1372 times:
Hello Itay.
I experienced the very same dilemma that you describe, over a year ago.
Many enthusiasts suggest the 100-400 lens is the one, when it comes to generic aviation photography. I was wary of the fact the lens is not so young any more, and I had heard too many stories from people who had issues with their copies. So when the 70-300 'L' came out, and I heard such good things about it, that made the decision for me.
Pretty well all my photos here over the last year or so are taken with the 70-300 lens. I agree with the argument that the extra 100mm loss at the long end is more than made up for by:
* the very useful 70-100mm wide end of the lens
* the high quality, allowing cropping of 300mm shots
* the significant weight gain
* the lens is notably more compact
* the modern generation image stabilisation
If a new version of the 100-400 lens had been created, then more head scratching might have been required.
NSMike From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 236 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (2 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1318 times:
I own both and use the 70-300L 99% of the time. I like the 70mm vs 100mm on the short end. But I also own longer primes (400 and 500) so my needs may be a little different. I guess it depends on which end you'll get the most out of. If you didn't find yourself using 70mm-100mm all that often, go with the 100-400L.
Pearl Snares, Taye Drums, Sabian Cymbals, Remo Heads, Los Cabos Sticks
Sponsor Message: 
From Israel, joined Aug 2012, 27 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 156 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8214 posts, 
From Russia, joined May 2005, 576 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 236 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
