70-300 vs 100-400

formula400

formula400

Messages
775
Name
lewis
Edit My Images
Yes
right ive been reading about both of these and was wondering what one is the better, it will be used for motor sport at brands, snetterton and cadwell, maybe a few more but we will see.

so the Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens or the Canon 100 - 400 mm / F 4,5 - 5,6 EF L IS USM Lens

if we take weight, price out of the equation what one will focus faster and deliver better images???


cheers people.
 
i think id prefer the extra reach, i guess it depends on your style and locations. silverstone stands are often far from the track. at presscot i could use a 16-50 just fine, on a crop but still..
 
You will get better images from the 70-300L

Yes, the 100-400mm gives you a bit more reach. However by 350mm it is starting to get soft and tbh compared to the 70-300L it is not as sharp at any focal length anyway.

The 70-300L is quicker to lock focus and tracks better too.

I have had both lenses.

Want to check the focal lengths in comparison. Canon help here...
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html
 
I rave about my 70-300L (it replaced both my 70-200 F/4 IS and 100-400L), but for motorsport and on FF, the 100-400L is better suited, mostly due to it's extra reach.
 
Last edited:
The ONLY thing the 100-400L has over the 70-300L is the extra 100mm, other than that the 70-300L is superior in every respect.
 
Jackwow said:
The ONLY thing the 100-400L has over the 70-300L is the extra 100mm, other than that the 70-300L is superior in every respect.
Click to expand...

And... DOF considerations aside... if you crop the 70-300mm at 300 to match 400mm FOV then it still produces a more detailed image than the 100-400mm!
 
I can post some 70-300mm examples full res but I cannot compare them to the 100-400mm as have not had the lens for some time.
 
The 70-300 will focus faster at 300mm, but the 100-400 will focus faster between 300 and 400mm.

Really, you should be making this decision on one question - do I need longer than 300mm very often?
 
RichardtheSane said:
And... DOF considerations aside... if you crop the 70-300mm at 300 to match 400mm FOV then it still produces a more detailed image than the 100-400mm!
Click to expand...

I very much doubt that. Digital zoom (which is what you're describing) has never, ever been a match for proper optical zooming.

If this were true, then why aren't hoardes of birders selling their 100-400 lenses to buy the 70-300?
 
Last edited:
The biggest benefits of the 70-300 are size, improved IS, and better IQ (especially within the 70-200mm range). From 200mm onwards the 70-300 softens a little, and from 250mm onwards there is little to split the 70-300 & 100-400 in terms of IQ, apart from the missing 300-400 on the former. Both lenses soften within the longest 100mm portion of their range, but results are still very good.

IMO, if you will be shooting mostly within the 250-400mm range, and are not fussed about size/weight get the 100-400. If you shoot mostly below 300mm, get the 70-300L. If you are unsure get the 70-300L because it is the newer and better lens, and will be much easier to resell at a smaller loss if you don't get on with it.

As for focus speed, both are very good / evenly balanced in decent light.

edit: Not sure whether 300mm will be enough for motorsport (depends where you sit/stand), but this may give an idea of how close the 70-300 can get on FF at 300mm. Taken last night, on not the clearest of evenings. 100% crop.
canon6d0016c.jpg
 
Last edited:
hollis_f said:
I very much doubt that. Digital zoom (which is what you're describing) has never, ever been a match for proper optical zooming.
Click to expand...

Actually, it has. If you have a high quality optic and a decent amount of pixels on target, then cropping the image down can still produce a superior image than a lower quality optic with a longer focal length.

Thinking about it my experience may not be entirely reflective as I used the 100-400mm on an earlier crop camera wheras I used my 70-300mm L on the 7D and now the 5D3.

But still, the significant increase in sharpness the 70-300L has at the long end over the 100-400L makes shooting at 300mm and cropping a viable option.

I really cannot stress enough how much sharper the 70-300mm L is over the 100-400L

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...3&Sample=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

If you want to see what a crop frame is like select 60D on the 100-400L...

If this were true, then why aren't hoardes of birders selling their 100-400 lenses to buy the 70-300?
Click to expand...

You would be surprised to hear that while hoardes may not be doing it, people have done exactly that, and stated the same as I that they have sharper results.
 
Orville said:
From 200mm onwards the 70-300 softens a little
Click to expand...

Mine doesn't. It is at it's absolute sharpest at 300mm with a slight bit of softening below 100mm. If yours is softer at 300mm I would suggest you get it checked over as this is not normal...
 
Having used a 100-400 and tried my mates 70-300L I would agree with Richard and go for the 70-300 even on FF.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Mine doesn't. It is at it's absolute sharpest at 300mm with a slight bit of softening below 100mm. If yours is softer at 300mm I would suggest you get it checked over as this is not normal...
Click to expand...
Maybe not all 70-300L's soften towards the long end, but mine does ever-so-slightly, and so do most other 70-300L's that have been professionally reviewed and had MTF readings measured. Check here for an example.

I am not saying that the lens is soft (far from it, it is razor sharp), just that it is not as bitingly sharp at 300 as it is at 70-200, and only then when you pixel peep at 100%.

edit: Here's an MTF graph from lenstip. 135mm is sharpest and then it drops to it's lowest resolution at 300mm. Even so, 300mm is still very sharp.
42509254.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top