70-300L, 70-200 2.8L ISII or 100-400L II

B

BLZeebub

Messages
467
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning All,

Its been a while and my original kit was all based around motorsport but now i dont do that and i generally just do airsoft photography.

Currently i use a 1D3 with a 300/2.8 non IS which im happy with most of the time except for the weight can be a pain and low light on winter days and in the dark of thick woodland the high iso is limited on the old 1D3.

I was thinking of taking advantage of the current canon interest free lens deals and ive whittled it down to the 100-300L which is small, light, cheap and at a push takes a kenko TC. Second is the 70-200L is II which is highest on the quality and reasonable weight, middling on price and takes canon TCs. Thirdly is the new 100-400L II which i initially discounted based on the original mk1 but i understand the mk2 is very good although its the most expensive.

The second part of the plan is to pick up a 6D for the really dingy days and as a possible travel combo with whichever lens i go for.

I can see pro's & cons to all 3 lenses so any pointers or help would be appreciated!

Cheers
Nat
B-)
 
No replies yet, so I'll chip in as I have all of these lenses. I think it depends what you envisage you will use the lens for. How much reach do you want and will you only use it in good light? Here is how I use mine...

100-400L II My latest purchase. Longer reach - for sports and wildlife (football, kitesurfer, birds, butterflies) Lovely close focusing when you need it. (I'm small and can focus on my foot). I mistakenly took this to a floodlit football match instead of the 70-200 and was amazed how good it was.

70-200L f/2.8 IS II I use this for when the light is poor, mostly to photograph sports.

70-300L (I think you mean, it's not 100 at wide end) This was my first L lens and bought mainly because I couldn't afford the 70-200 at the time. I think it's a great lens. Sharp and compact and much lighter than the other two. I don't use this as much now I have the other two, but I am loathed to get rid of it yet. I still think I will use it for holidays, or if I want to travel a bit lighter.

It looks like you have the 300 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 so possibly the 100-400 is the only one that will give you something new?
 
Cheers Bebop,

I was hoping someone might have all 3 and I think you may have confirmed what I already thought. The 100-300 is a bargain but the 100-400 is what you really want if you can afford it and the best all-rounder. Then the 70-200 is the best of the bunch in pure quality terms but doesn't have the reach of the other 2.

Yep, I typo'd on the 70-300L!

I do have an old 70-200/2.8 non IS but it has focus issues, a heavily marked front element and is very old so despite it having the focus unit replaced a few years back it may well have gone again and the repair costs make it uneconomical. The 300/2.8 is currently used as my go-to lens but is a hefty beast and being a prime I sometimes miss a shot.

Pretty much all my use is in airsoft photography now (which is a bit like paintball for those that don't know), so that will be its prime use in all weathers come rain or shine. Then as a possible travel lens if I pick up a 6D as I'm not lugging the 1D3 and associated kit around for a holiday!

From what you've said if the 100-400 can cope with floodlit football then dense woodland and murky days should be possible. I'm losing a couple of stops on the 300/2.8 but gaining 4 IS stops. Ill lose some of the depth of field of having a lower f-stop to isolate the subject but gain in being able to position myself better in some cases where the 300 limits how close I can be.

B->
 
it's a tough call. To me the 100-400 is too large to travel with unless I'll be taking sports/bird photos. I think all three are great lenses.

I posted one of the floodlit football photos on this thread (sorry being lazy and not posting again, but thread might interest you ) https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/70-200lii-and-100-400lii.585940/#post-6834676

If it's dark, I'd still choose the 2.8.

Maybe it would be a good idea to hire/borrow first or even try out in a shop to get the feel of them?
 
As a travel lens it would be for wildlife & not as a walkaround - ill take the old G11 for that. The plan was to try and find them somewhere on Friday and make a decision!

Thanks fro the pointers though.

B->
 
I travel a lot and used to take 70-300L with me along with the rest of my gear. I now take 100-400L and it fits in the same bag as before so makes no difference other than a little more weight. Apart from focal lengths 70-300L and 100-400L are basically the same lens and both are superb.
 
I have a 70-300L and the 70-200L and had the old 100-400L

I first got the 70-300L after trying out all the 70-200s and I love it. It is sharp, IS is fantastic for hand holding and it is light and small its been my main lens (80% at least) for 3 years as a general walk about. I photo wildlife, Motorsport and a mix of everything else.

I then thought I needed more reach so got a 100-400 which went after 2 weeks it was just to heavy. I would still like a longer lens but that will be a prime or one of the new Sigmas whilst saving.

I got a 70-200L a few months ago for low light football and indoor sports and to get a shallow DOF at football next season. I have also used it with a kenko x2 converter with good results but AF is too slow for BIF well a hobby anyway so extreme stuff but ok for football. It is a lot heavier than the 70-300L and you feel it after an hour or so but lighter than your 300mm

As they are all great lens you have to think what you want one for.

To cover low light and grotty conditions as well as shallow DOF the 70-200L is the best choice for the job. Get a 7Dii instead of a 6D and you make up some of the reach of the 300mm you have now and also get better ISO results than your 1D

For travel and general portability the 70-300L wins hands down.

For 400mm and focal length covered there is only one winner.

I am tempted with the new 100-400 but a the best part of £2000 I would need to sell the 70-200L and f2.8 is too useful so a 400mmf5.6 might come first.

They all have their plus points and really the answer is to get all three.
 
Last edited:
Well I signed my soul on the dotted line for a 100-400 Mk2 in the end. The 70-300 was light and very good but I couldn't help thinking that the extra range of the 100-400 was more of a plus than the extra weight as I used to a 300/2.8 anyway and its noticeably lighter than that! I had a quick play with a 6D at the same time and I think I see one of them in my future too!

B->
 
Ive Just brought the 70-300mmL as a walk/travel lens Spot on lens imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top