Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM vs. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM?!

Started Feb 22, 2012 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Rich Turk Regular Member • Posts: 283
Re: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM vs. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM?!

agree w/last poster. I see the two lenses having really different uses... 300 is not enough imho for wildlife photography, so the 100-400 is 'better' for that.

In terms of image quality, the consensus seems to be that the 70-300 IS L is really really good.... No way I would own one because I wouldnt spend that $$ to only get to 300mm. I have the much cheaper 70-300 IS non L (not too mention much lighter) which has gotten me some very nice shots.


Loren Charif wrote:

This thread should help a bit:

I think I recall other threads out here (which I can't lay my hands on right now) that also address this exact question.

That said...I own both. If you need the reach, there's no question the 100-400 is the clear winner. The 70-300L is more compact, and has superior IS and AF (although the AF is a marginal difference, as discussed in the first thread above). It's also probably a tad sharper, but, again, it's a small difference. Finally, the 70-300's bokeh appears cleaner to me.

Almost forgot...due to its physical size, (and, again, if you don't need the reach), the 70-300 is a much better lens for travel, since it fits in bags the 100-400 can't come close to.

Hope this helps.


-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow