From your experience...

Dear Fellow Canon Owners:

I am in the process of extending the reach of my 10D, at this time my only lens is a 28-135IS of which I'm very, very happy with. I want to extend the focal length for outside day shots at weekend trips I take with my family.

I have narrowed the selection to the following 4 models:

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Has anyone had any experience with these models? If so I would really appreciate your input. I searched prices and found that the last two are roughly 3 times the price of the first ones. Are they really that better or are the differences based mostly on the 2.8 and 400mm options. Right now I like the 100-400L because of the extra reach and the L quality but I've seen some extender options and perhaps for my use the 75-300IS will be better suited (and not to mention easier for my bank account to swallow).

I remind that these will be used for hobby pictures but I don't want to buy something that I will regret because of a big difference in quality. I've come to understand here that the longer the focal length the more noticable the L glass and larger aperture becomes, is this correct?

I appreciate your time in helping me.

I have both the 70-200 f4 and the 75-300 f/4-5.6. My personal choice would be the the 70-200 f4 for the following reasons

1. it is a faster lens i don't meen by f stop it actually will focus alot faster.

2. Great walk around lens not too heavy

3. Better glass, the images are alot sharper.

As far as the 70-200 f/2.8 great lens can be alittle heavy to walk around with.

Can"t help with the 100-400, that is next on my list.

Bedoni said:

Dear Fellow Canon Owners:

I am in the process of extending the reach of my 10D, at this time
my only lens is a 28-135IS of which I'm very, very happy with. I
want to extend the focal length for outside day shots at weekend
trips I take with my family.

I have narrowed the selection to the following 4 models:

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Has anyone had any experience with these models? If so I would
really appreciate your input. I searched prices and found that the
last two are roughly 3 times the price of the first ones. Are they
really that better or are the differences based mostly on the 2.8
and 400mm options. Right now I like the 100-400L because of the
extra reach and the L quality but I've seen some extender options
and perhaps for my use the 75-300IS will be better suited (and not
to mention easier for my bank account to swallow).

I remind that these will be used for hobby pictures but I don't
want to buy something that I will regret because of a big
difference in quality. I've come to understand here that the longer
the focal length the more noticable the L glass and larger aperture
becomes, is this correct?

I appreciate your time in helping me.

Click to expand...

I second the recommendation of the 70-200 f/4 L. Fast focusing, sharp, good colors, and good handling.

Bedoni said:

Dear Fellow Canon Owners:

I am in the process of extending the reach of my 10D, at this time
my only lens is a 28-135IS of which I'm very, very happy with. I
want to extend the focal length for outside day shots at weekend
trips I take with my family.

I have narrowed the selection to the following 4 models:

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Has anyone had any experience with these models? If so I would
really appreciate your input. I searched prices and found that the
last two are roughly 3 times the price of the first ones. Are they
really that better or are the differences based mostly on the 2.8
and 400mm options. Right now I like the 100-400L because of the
extra reach and the L quality but I've seen some extender options
and perhaps for my use the 75-300IS will be better suited (and not
to mention easier for my bank account to swallow).

I remind that these will be used for hobby pictures but I don't
want to buy something that I will regret because of a big
difference in quality. I've come to understand here that the longer
the focal length the more noticable the L glass and larger aperture
becomes, is this correct?

I appreciate your time in helping me.

Click to expand...

You will love the extra reach..

Not as sharp as the 70-200 but it has reach that comes in handy..

I have the 100-400 and I love it!

Murphy

You might want to consider a used 100-400 L IS. I just bought one from http://www.KEH.com , they are usually very conservative on their ratings.(I.E. the lens is better then they rate it). Here are some links from my first outing with the lens at the Detroit Zoo, handheld with my 3 year old buzzing around my feet,while taking pictures.
Lion http://www.pbase.com/image/15392707
Polar Bear http://www.pbase.com/image/15391657
Lemers http://www.pbase.com/image/15392946

Steve Rose
http://www.pbase.com/srose1

Bedoni said:

Dear Fellow Canon Owners:

I am in the process of extending the reach of my 10D, at this time
my only lens is a 28-135IS of which I'm very, very happy with. I
want to extend the focal length for outside day shots at weekend
trips I take with my family.

I have narrowed the selection to the following 4 models:

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Has anyone had any experience with these models? If so I would
really appreciate your input. I searched prices and found that the
last two are roughly 3 times the price of the first ones. Are they
really that better or are the differences based mostly on the 2.8
and 400mm options. Right now I like the 100-400L because of the
extra reach and the L quality but I've seen some extender options
and perhaps for my use the 75-300IS will be better suited (and not
to mention easier for my bank account to swallow).

I remind that these will be used for hobby pictures but I don't
want to buy something that I will regret because of a big
difference in quality. I've come to understand here that the longer
the focal length the more noticable the L glass and larger aperture
becomes, is this correct?

I appreciate your time in helping me.

Click to expand...

I own the 70-200 f4 L, the 75-300 IS, and the 100-400 L IS. I do not have, nor have I ever used the 70-200 f2.8 L IS, but it is on my want list. I also have the 28-135 IS, and, like you, I am happy with it.

While I do not think the 75-300 IS is junk, indeed some of the newer ones seem quite capable, it is the lowest quality lens you have listed by a good bit. I never use it anymore, even as a knock around lens, and it spends most of it's time in my daughters Rebel Ti kit. I got it and my 28-135 IS when I first got my D60, and it was the first lens I replaced. At the time I replaced it with a 100-300 f5.6 L, just to get sharper than the 75-300 IS was capable of.

As far as the most good for the money (in the lenses you have listed) I believe the 70-200 f4 L is it. Optical quaility is outstanding, the lens is very well made, and yet it is not heavy or bulky (compared to other L's). It is my default lens, it is the lens that is on my camera right now in the camera bag.

But.... You already have the 28-135 IS, so the 70-200 f4 is not that much of a focal length improvement for you, although you can use the Canon TC's with it for more focal length. I regularly use the TC 1.4 II with mine and really like the combo. I think to round out your kit probably the 100-400 L IS would be the best answer for you...assuming you will actually need a long tele. Only you can answer that.

I can find nothing to complain about on the 100-400 L IS, I think it is a great lens, and I love mine. The images are good and sharp. The lens works well. The IS is wonderfull. But the lens is fairly large and heavy. Some people do not like the push-pull zoom, but that is what I grew up with, so I actually like it.

So, if you actually are looking for more focal length than your 28-135 IS only the 75-300 IS and the 100-400 L IS really offer that much more length. Of the two the 100-400 is the better, some would say by far, as in not in the same ballpark. It has 100 mm more, it has much better image quality wide open, and it, unlike the 75-300 IS, can work with Canon extenders. Either the 1.4 TC or the 2.0 TC will work with the 100-400 L IS, giving you even more possible focal length. Yes, third party extenders can work with the 75-300 IS, but I think it is likely that the lens would fall on it's face in this aplication.

I would say that adding the 100-400 L IS to the lens you already have would give you 28-400 mm length with little wasted overlap. Both lenses would have IS. And extenders could be added to take you to either 28-560 with IS and good AF (1.4 TC), or 28-800 with IS and some AF issues to work around (2.0 TC).

Darrell

Bedoni said:

Dear Fellow Canon Owners:

I am in the process of extending the reach of my 10D, at this time
my only lens is a 28-135IS of which I'm very, very happy with. I
want to extend the focal length for outside day shots at weekend
trips I take with my family.

I have narrowed the selection to the following 4 models:

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Has anyone had any experience with these models? If so I would
really appreciate your input. I searched prices and found that the
last two are roughly 3 times the price of the first ones. Are they
really that better or are the differences based mostly on the 2.8
and 400mm options. Right now I like the 100-400L because of the
extra reach and the L quality but I've seen some extender options
and perhaps for my use the 75-300IS will be better suited (and not
to mention easier for my bank account to swallow).

I remind that these will be used for hobby pictures but I don't
want to buy something that I will regret because of a big
difference in quality. I've come to understand here that the longer
the focal length the more noticable the L glass and larger aperture
becomes, is this correct?

I appreciate your time in helping me.

Click to expand...

Its obvious that a $1200 lens will do better then a $400 lens. Givin the fact that the 100-400 is three times the cost of a 75-300, it is a factor to take into consideration. Sure a 100-400 is gonna get you closer, and have better quality, but how much better? $800 better?

To bad no 70-300 f4s around. Narrowed down to these two, gonna meditate it a little more.

70-200 f4 +TC 1.4 II
OR
100-400 L IS

If anyboday has any other model I've missed then please mention it.

Thanks.

70-200 F/4. I had a 75-300 IS lens and traded to the 70-200 because:

1. Lightweight.
2. Front element doesn't rotate -- easy for polarizers
3. Sharp as a razor even at F4
4. Makes me look extremely silly at Tee-Ball games

Some of my kid images with the 70-200 F/4L:

Toshi said:

I second the recommendation of the 70-200 f/4 L. Fast focusing,
sharp, good colors, and good handling.

Click to expand...

--
Ken Rimple
Newtown Square, PA
PhotoSig portfolio: http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=377180
Pbase portfolio: http://www.pbase.com/krimple
BreezeBrowser Galleries online at http://www.rimple.net/albums

Did you get the memo?

Ken Rimple said:

1. Lightweight.
2. Front element doesn't rotate -- easy for polarizers
3. Sharp as a razor even at F4
4. Makes me look extremely silly at Tee-Ball games

Some of my kid images with the 70-200 F/4L:

Toshi said:

I second the recommendation of the 70-200 f/4 L. Fast focusing,
sharp, good colors, and good handling.

Click to expand...

--
Ken Rimple
Newtown Square, PA
PhotoSig portfolio: http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=377180
Pbase portfolio: http://www.pbase.com/krimple
BreezeBrowser Galleries online at http://www.rimple.net/albums

Did you get the memo?

Click to expand...

--
Ken Rimple
Newtown Square, PA
PhotoSig portfolio: http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=377180
Pbase portfolio: http://www.pbase.com/krimple
BreezeBrowser Galleries online at http://www.rimple.net/albums

Did you get the memo?

Ryan Witham said:

Its obvious that a $1200 lens will do better then a $400 lens.
Givin the fact that the 100-400 is three times the cost of a
75-300, it is a factor to take into consideration. Sure a 100-400
is gonna get you closer, and have better quality, but how much
better? $800 better?

Click to expand...

Hmm, I think I put in my posting that the statements I made were "in my opinion", so it fits here also. In my opinion the 100-400 IS is definately $800 better than the 75-300 IS, without a doubt. The image quaility wide open can not be compared at all, although get them up around f8 and above and the margin gets slimmer. But, the 100-400 has 100 more mm of focal length and can work with a TC. I feel, my opinion again, that if you get a third party TC behind the 75-300 the lens will show all of it's softness in a big way.

So, I feel it is indeed worth the extra $800 without the TC ability. Add that and the gulf between them gets even bigger.

Darrell

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4935380

Bedoni said:

Dear Fellow Canon Owners:

I am in the process of extending the reach of my 10D, at this time
my only lens is a 28-135IS of which I'm very, very happy with. I
want to extend the focal length for outside day shots at weekend
trips I take with my family.

I have narrowed the selection to the following 4 models:

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Has anyone had any experience with these models? If so I would
really appreciate your input. I searched prices and found that the
last two are roughly 3 times the price of the first ones. Are they
really that better or are the differences based mostly on the 2.8
and 400mm options. Right now I like the 100-400L because of the
extra reach and the L quality but I've seen some extender options
and perhaps for my use the 75-300IS will be better suited (and not
to mention easier for my bank account to swallow).

I remind that these will be used for hobby pictures but I don't
want to buy something that I will regret because of a big
difference in quality. I've come to understand here that the longer
the focal length the more noticable the L glass and larger aperture
becomes, is this correct?

I appreciate your time in helping me.

Click to expand...

--
Patrick Hayden

IN THE FUTURE, THE REAL WILL BE ANALOG AND THE IDEAL DIGITAL

Bedoni said:

Dear Fellow Canon Owners:

I am in the process of extending the reach of my 10D, at this time
my only lens is a 28-135IS

Click to expand...

I have a 38-135 IS with which I am very happy. I also have the 75-300 IS which is a leftover from 35mm. The 75-300 is the equivalent of 120 - 480 mm in 35 mm. It is harder to use and a little softer but still quite a nice lens for the money. Even though it has IS it needs a monopod over about 250 (35mmEQV)...somewhere around 150 mm actual, which is what exif records. (This is indoors, 1600 ISO, no flash, 1/20 to 1/60 sec depending on light).

I use a sturdy monopod with a small tripod with the legs toward my chest (make about a 9" base triangle on my chest) and the center post of the tripod attached to the monopod at right angles with two hose clamps. This ability to brace the monopod against my chest (hold breath and squeeze) - helps greatly over a bare monopod and takes little room and costs very little, and is just a mobile as a bare 'pod.

Bear in mind that the 100-400 will be actually a 160 - 640 mm equivalent lens. At the 640 setting not only will you need a tripod but it will have to be a sturdy, heavy tripod - and you MUST use remote release and with anything under about 1/500 sec lock the mirror up. Lenses that long are really specialty items - you will find in hot weather you can get atmospheric diffreaction, even.

Murphy said:

Bedoni said:

Dear Fellow Canon Owners:

I am in the process of extending the reach of my 10D, at this time
my only lens is a 28-135IS of which I'm very, very happy with. I
want to extend the focal length for outside day shots at weekend
trips I take with my family.

I have narrowed the selection to the following 4 models:

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Has anyone had any experience with these models? If so I would
really appreciate your input. I searched prices and found that the
last two are roughly 3 times the price of the first ones. Are they
really that better or are the differences based mostly on the 2.8
and 400mm options. Right now I like the 100-400L because of the
extra reach and the L quality but I've seen some extender options
and perhaps for my use the 75-300IS will be better suited (and not
to mention easier for my bank account to swallow).

I remind that these will be used for hobby pictures but I don't
want to buy something that I will regret because of a big
difference in quality. I've come to understand here that the longer
the focal length the more noticable the L glass and larger aperture
becomes, is this correct?

I appreciate your time in helping me.

Click to expand...

You will love the extra reach..

Not as sharp as the 70-200 but it has reach that comes in handy..

I have the 100-400 and I love it!

Murphy

Click to expand...

The L series keeps resale value much better than the others also.

My 28-70 and 100-400 are worth almost what I paid for them if not more on ebay

Murphy