Upgrading 70-300IS USM - advice please!

M

matt_wright

Messages
482
Name
Matt Wright
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I currently have a Canon 70-300 IS USM and I am finding it slightly soft at 300 end and also sometimes the AF hunts a bit and takes some time (much better than my old tamron 70-300)!
I am thinking of upgrading to the 100-400L
Any ideas as to If I'd notice a difference (if so how much) - would it be worthwhile?
Any other options to consider / things that I may not be considering/ overlooking?

Thanks in advance

Matt

P.s. I shoot on 450d if that makes a difference but have plans to upgrade at some point to something like a 60d / 7d (or whatever the latest model at the time in that range)! Always thought it was better to get the quality glass first.
 
Surely the logical upgrade would be the 70-300L?
 
The 100-400 is a huge step up from the 70-300.

I made that change a while ago...

Fantastic for wildlife etc....

Check out my Flickr stream...
 
Craikeybaby said:
Surely the logical upgrade would be the 70-300L?
Click to expand...

What are the pro's of that over the 100-400? I guess I originally thought of 100-400 as more around second hand and therefore cheaper!

Matt
 
I upgraded my 70-300 IS USM to the 70-300L and it's a whole new world of snappy AF, much better IS and certainly sharper at 300mm with all apertures (whereas the non-L was significantly better at F8 than other apertures). It's also about the same size albeit noticeably heavier. My 1.4x TC also works far better with the AF on the L than the non-L.
 
mipevo6 said:
The 100-400 is a huge step up from the 70-300.

I made that change a while ago...

Fantastic for wildlife etc....

Check out my Flickr stream...
Click to expand...

Anything you regret?

Anyone know how the IQ of 100-400 compares to 70-300L?
Thanks
 
I have read comparisons which suggested that the 70-300L is sharper than the 100-400L but I've never done a direct comparison myself. I did test a 100-400L before buying the 70-300L and I felt that, for me, it was just too much of a step up in size/weight to justify losing the shorter-end range and adding 100m at the long end, also I wasn't keen on the pull-push zoom of the 100-400. So that's all personal preference stuff so I'd suggest having a go with both yourself before deciding.
 
matt_wright said:
Anything you regret?

Anyone know how the IQ of 100-400 compares to 70-300L?
Thanks
Click to expand...

I guess it depends what your looking for.....

Most of my shots with it are wildlife / sports etc... That means I am normally shooting at 400mm and often wide open.

The difference between 300 and 400 is huge....

The new 70-300 L is very nice though.

how many of your shots are at the long end ? (I assume as you call out soft at 300 then quite a few :)


Cheers
 
Do you need longer or better quality?

Better quality - Canon 300 f4 IS (or Canon 300 2.8 if you can afford it!), Sigma 100-300 f4, Canon 100-400 @ 300mm

Longer - Canon 300 f4/2.8 IS and 1.4x TC, Canon 100-400 or Canon 400 f5.6.

The trouble with the Canon 70-300 IS is that to get significantly better or longer, you are talking three to ten times the price...

Also with long glass, you are talking primes not zooms - which are either fantastic or you will hate them because they become very focused (excuse the pun) on LOOOOONG. IQ is superb though!
 
Last edited:
desantnik said:
Do you need longer or better quality?

Better quality - Canon 300 f4 IS (or Canon 300 2.8 if you can afford it!), Sigma 100-300 f4, Canon 100-400 @ 300mm

Longer - Canon 300 f4/2.8 IS and 1.4x TC, Canon 100-400 or Canon 400 f5.6.

The trouble with the Canon 70-300 IS is that to get significantly better or longer, you are talking three to ten times the price...

Also with long glass, you are talking primes not zooms - which are either fantastic or you will hate them because they become very focused (excuse the pun) on LOOOOONG. IQ is superb though!
Click to expand...

I guess ultimately I want a step up in quality. And extra reach would be great. I need to stick with a zoom for the versatility.

Anyone know how he IQ of the 100-400 @400 compares to my non-l series 70-300IS USM @ 300?

Thanks
Matt
 
Anyone know how he IQ of the 100-400 @400 compares to my non-l series 70-300IS USM @ 300?
Click to expand...

There's something about the images from the 100-400 that I've never liked. Its not the sharpness, but the rendition of colours and the harsh contrastyness of it that isn't good.

The 300 f4 or f2.8 doesn't show this, the 400 5.6 is a bit the same as the 100-400.

Its older technology, I'm sure if they redid it now it would be massively better (but twice the price LOL!)
 
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=386818

Some examples of the 300mm f4 on this thread.

As desantnik said, choices start to get expensive at this stage. Depends what you want to photograph?

Choices are sigma 100-300mm f4 or sigma 120-300mm f2.8 or 50-500mm OS f5-6.3 if you want an affordable wildlife lens (a lot of people rave about it). Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 (old tech) but versatile, the new 70-300mm L f4-5.6 or canon primes like the 300mm f4, 400mm f5.6 or a massive jump up in $$$ to the 300mm f2.8 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4 or 600mm f4 but they're significant pennies.

Depends on your budget and your requirements, but don't be afraid to go used, I got a fantastic 300mm f2.8 (almost mint) for a very good price a couple of years back and can't say enough about it. The 300mm f4 I own is another great lens, and a friend has got great service out of the sigma 100-300mm f4 and by all accounts the new 120-300mm f2.8 OS has definitely improved over the previous model which had a few flaws.

Until canon release a 100(200)-400mm f4 I'll stick with my primes.
 
Thanks for advice so far guys
- any one else with anything to add.
Still think I realistically looking at either 100-400L or possibly with 70-300L
So if anyone else has direct experience with these two lenses I'd appreciate comments!!

Thanks a lot

Matt
 
Another thing you might need to bear in mind is that pretty much everything we've talked about here is larger and heavier than your current setup.

When you start to play this game your kit becomes much larger... and I tell you this because it effectively means that your camera becomes the reason for going out not something you take when you go out to do something else.

Most on here reading this probably are nodding your heads now :)

I just mention this so you don't blow 1k or more and then leave it at home all the time...
 
Jackwow said:
What 1.4x TC are you using on the 70-300L as Canon TC's don't fit?
Click to expand...

The Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x, it fits and it works but you do need high contrast conditions for the AF to work properly. Anything a bit dull, shady and bland and it struggles a bit. Bright sunshine plus good contrast and it's tickettyboo :)
 
I wouldn't put a tc onto a f5.6 lens as unless you have a 1d that's out of the canon spec for af...no wonder it hunts!
 
Last year i got fed up with not being wanting to use my 70-300USM over 200mm, at least not if i wanted ot crop in. I ended up going for a 70-200 f/4IS and dont regret it one bit.
I dont miss the longer reach as at 200mm the new lens is way sharper than the old at 300mm.
My Boss has a 100-400L and to be honest my shorter lens is noticeably sharper. Maybe its a poor copy she has but i much prefer look i get with my 70-200. I also prefer the size and weight of the 70-200, especially as i tend to use it as my main walkabout lens.
Thats all i can add really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top