Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 67

Thread: Canon 70-300L IS upgrade?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    29

    Default Canon 70-300L IS upgrade?

    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

  2. #2
    Member yash777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    278

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Member Darren Howie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    YMML
    Posts
    445

    Default

    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..

  4. #4
    Senior Member Jan-Jasinski's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    CYOW
    Posts
    1,104

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    29

    Default

    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


  7. #7
    JetPhotos Crew B7772ADL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surrey, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    2,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yash777 View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Jan-Jasinski's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    CYOW
    Posts
    1,104

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick C View Post
    ......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
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  10. #10
    Member yash777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    278

    Default

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

  11. #11
    Member Richard M. A. Wood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the middle of nowhere, central Florida.
    Posts
    119

    Default

    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!

  12. #12
    JetPhotos Crew B7772ADL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surrey, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    2,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan-Jasinski View Post
    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

  13. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    29

    Default

    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

  14. #14
    Senior Member Simpleboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    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.
    Sam Rudge
    A 5D3, some Canon lenses, the Sigma L and a flash

  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    29

    Default

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

  16. #16
    Senior Member Jan-Jasinski's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    CYOW
    Posts
    1,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B7772ADL View Post
    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?



    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.



    First sensible thing you've said in that reply
    I have used both of those lenses and find the 70-300L kinda rubbish... The 100-400L proved to be a better winner. No photos unfortunately.

    The 1.4 TC would be a nice addition if you wanted to do contrail spotting or get the extra range while spotting.

    This shot was taken with the 100-400L and a Kenko 1.4 TC and that is some good result IMO!

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/rapics/...in/photostream

    I was hoping to get the 70-200f/2.8L and 2x but I think i'll get the 100-400L since aviation is my prime subject! The following shot was taken Friday with a 90% crop, 1200px wide, I can read the registration. That's pretty good. So 1.4 TC would get you even closer which would be nice for contrails which are further. The thing I noticed yesterday though was that the push pull was hard to use, I tried to make it less tight but had difficulties nevertheless. Perhaps the copy I used was the problem?

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/janjasi...in/photostream

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan-Jasinski View Post
    I have used both of those lenses and find the 70-300L kinda rubbish... The 100-400L proved to be a better winner. No photos unfortunately.

    The 1.4 TC would be a nice addition if you wanted to do contrail spotting or get the extra range while spotting.
    Have you shot at an airshow? say the Thunderbirds? I wanna see you manually focusing something that's on your screen for a split second.

    How is the 70-300L rubbish? I've heard good reviews, and I've heard that the image quality on the non-L 70-300 is almost as good as an L lens, so I don't think a 70-300L could be rubbish.

    You know Rick, you might wanna see if you can borrow or rent those lenses and try them out at your local airport. Either way you win the IS. You might want to consider the 30mm you would lose on the short end. I have the 70-200 F4L with the 1.4x TC, and the 28mm difference it has on the short end is enough to not be able to get a 747 on the taxiway, so I've had to swap lenses (or the TC) a couple of times. One of my friends complained about that when he upgraded the same lens for the 100-400L
    [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

    Felipe Garcia

  18. #18
    Member Bjorn1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Felipe Garcia View Post
    How is the 70-300L rubbish? I've heard good reviews, and I've heard that the image quality on the non-L 70-300 is almost as good as an L lens, so I don't think a 70-300L could be rubbish.
    You're right about that Felipe, the non L 70-300 is alsmost as good as an L lens. I bought the non-L 70-300 in 2006 and i'm still having fun with it together with my 50D.

  19. #19
    JetPhotos Crew B7772ADL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surrey, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    2,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan-Jasinski View Post
    I have used both of those lenses and find the 70-300L kinda rubbish... The 100-400L proved to be a better winner. No photos unfortunately.

    Were you definately using the 70-300 L (the new white coloured one) and not the regular 70-300 (black plastic one)?

  20. #20
    Senior Member Jan-Jasinski's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    CYOW
    Posts
    1,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B7772ADL View Post
    Were you definately using the 70-300 L (the new white coloured one) and not the regular 70-300 (black plastic one)?
    I have used both. Well I take back the 70-300L is rubbish but for me it certainly isn`t something extraordinary. Does it even come with a hood? Whatever you feel is better in your hands then buy it.
    I am sticking with getting a 100-400L.
    http://www.ephotozine.com/forums/top...-400l-is-87416

    So they say optics are slightly better in the 70-300L but 100mm extra gives a charm and is still sharp at 400mm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •