Canon New 70-300L vs Old 100-400L

Started Sep 29, 2010 | Discussions thread
Rakumi
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,120
Like?
Re: Canon New 70-300L vs Old 100-400L
In reply to akin_t, May 1, 2011

I was truly thinking about this lens, and there is great reviews on Youtube on the new L. The compact size is nice and the quality is awesome. But when reaching for a telephoto lens, I think it should be priced a bit less than the 100-400L. I mean, if somebody really wants long range, it is hard to resist the longer lens. I have a Sigma for the long range and I am happy with it. But it is large. I also have the 70-200mm f4 IS. The focal range of the 70-300mm seems great as a replacement. But the price difference for how much you get from 200mm to 300mm just doesn't seem worth it. And then comes the fact that you loose the constant f4. It would be a trade off worth considering, like I said, if the price difference was not so huge. I paid for my 70-200mm f4 IS brand new $1,025. Prices were great at that time. This was about the end of 2008.

So I guess will just settle for my 55-250mm as my portable extra reach. My first telephoto.

Has anybody else jumped ship from the 70-200mm f4 IS to the 70-300mm IS?
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow