Canon 70-300L IS upgrade?

[Rick C]

Hi folks,
I am wanting more reach and IS. So I am thinking of trading my Canon 70-200 f4L(non IS) for the new Canon 70-300L IS! It reads very well in the many reviews that I have read but is the Canon 100-400L IS the lens I should go for? Does anyone have real world experience of both lens that can give a comparison between 100-300mm?
I will use the lens for airport photography, occasionally airshow and perhaps a one off safari someday in the future.
Opinions and advice would be appreciated.
Rick C

[yash777]

I'd say go for the 100-400. I really don't get the logic why Canon came up with a 70-300L. That signals their intention that the 100-400 will probably never be upgraded.

[Darren Howie]

From what i have read and seen its a very high quality lens.
People who have shot with the 100-400 are saying it has less CA and a little sharper.
As it has 100mm less range i would hope it does but the extra 100 at the long end comes in handy a lot with the 100-400 so it really depends where and what focal lengths you will use most often.
I've had 2 100-400's both awesome and sharp throughout the full range with the newer one slightly sharper.
As with most guys who have used one i highly recommend them..

[Jan-Jasinski]

I used the 100-400L in Montreal yesterday and it's a fantastic lens! I got some superb shots of the AF A380 and thanks to 400mm I got the shots I wanted with a certain spot in the background. My other Nikon friend had only 300mm and said it wasn't enough.

[Brenden S]

I shoot with the sigma 50-500, when out doing aviation photography and other photography the extra zoom really does come in handy. The 300mm has its limitations.

[Rick C]

Thanks for the replies. As I expected the old 100-400 is still the firm favourite. However I know I would miss the lower end which means the most expensive option, keep the 70-200 for the low end and buy the 100-400 IS for everything else. Maybe?????
It would be great to see some shots on JP.Net taken with the 70-300L IS. Anyone spotted any yet?
Cheers, Rick C

[B7772ADL]

I'd say go for the 100-400. I really don't get the logic why Canon came up with a 70-300L. That signals their intention that the 100-400 will probably never be upgraded.

Have you actually seen a 70-300L? If you have you will instantly see that it is a much more compact lens which will be absolutely perfect for the traveller who wants a high quality L lens which is much smaller, lighter and more compact than traditional L glass. Not everyone wants to lug about a huge piece of metal and glass all the time. If I had a load of spare cash and was travelling alot I daresay I'd be looking at one.

The 100-400 might not be upgraded immeaditately but it's also worth remembering that the 200-400 with 1.4x integrated converter is in the pipeline which looks an absolutlely amazing lens, although it wont be cheap, but then again L glass wasn't meant to be cheap.

[Jan-Jasinski]

I have to be honest though, holding the 100-400L was heavy for a 13 (almost 14) year old kid, my back was quite sore. The 70-300L is compact and has z zoom barrel instead of push pull which is more comfortable. But the IQ of the 100-400L is still better and I would go for it with a 1.4 TC. the 2x is no good, tried that yesterday and trying to spot a plane while Manual focusing is extremely hard!! The 200-400L will be around 8K so that is something i'm sure you cannot get. I would then go for the 500F/4L though. If you want to see shots taken with one of those lenses then in the search box where it says category, choose lens and type in the "keyword" box 100-400L or 70-300L.

[brianw999]

......It would be great to see some shots on JP.Net taken with the 70-300L IS. Anyone spotted any yet?.......
Cheers, Rick C

Here's 17 images to look at for the 70-300L IS......http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos....e=1&display=15

...and for the 100-400L IS....um, er, quite a lot !! ..... http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos....e=1&display=15

[yash777]

Brian, the link for 70-300L gives 47000 photos!

[Richard M. A. Wood]

I have used the 100-400 for about 5 years now...good results most of the time. Not to get off topic, if you want more reach, and can invest some money, try a prime lens. It forces you to rethink on composition..but razor sharp images.

EF600 f4 for example.....light-weight, compact and great results!

[B7772ADL]

But the IQ of the 100-400L is still better

Have you tried using a 70-300L and a 100-400 side by side? I would like to see your photos if you have. Or is this you just summising again on what other people have said rather than your real world experience?

and I would go for it with a 1.4 TC. the 2x is no good, tried that yesterday and trying to spot a plane while Manual focusing is extremely hard!!

You'd advise purchasing a 100-400 with a 1.4x? Very, very interesting that. I found even using a 1.4x with the 100-400 a pretty pointless excercise due to the AF limitations and massive drop in IQ. Why suggest you need to buy a TC with a 100-400? Most of the time it wouldn't be used. I do agree about the 2x though, it was bad.

I would then go for the 500F/4L though..

First sensible thing you've said in that reply

[Rick C]

Guys,
Thanks for the replies with many valid points. Although I have seen both lens I have not handled them, however weight and size I dont believe is an issue for me. It comes down to two points:- image quality throughout the range, 70-100 or 300-400? Most reviews have the 70-300L on top for image quality as you would expect from L glass 12 years newer. Personally although I would like the longer end for that "what if moment" I know that I cannot do without the wide end. At what point do 100-400 users consider the focal length turns soft? This narrows the gap.
I will visit my local camera shop this week and try to make a decision. For those that are interested I will post my decision.
Richard, 600mm!! Brilliant but limited and not in competition with the 2 zooms. I have thought of a lesser prime but too limiting for my use.
Regards, Rick

[Simpleboy]

I know this is only taking one sample of each lens, but how about comparing them here

From what i gather with that, the 70-300L is the sharper lens.

[Rick C]

Simpleboy,
Thanks. I am familiar with that site and supports my belief that the new lens is superior over 100-300mm
Rick