OK, so I've now sold my 70-200m f/4L IS
to put the money towards something a bit longer, specifically for a trip to Galapagos coming up at Easter. (Yes, very lucky me!)
I've narrowed the choice down to two lenses:
1. EF 70 - 300mm F/4-5.6 L IS (the white one)
2. EF 100 - 400mm F/4.5-5.6 L IS (the dust pump)
The 70-300 is lighter, the 100-400 has more reach.
The 70-300 is smaller, the 100-400 has more reach.
The 70-300 has MUCH better IS (which I love), the 100-400 has more reach.
The 70-300 has better autofocus, the 100-400 has more reach.
I've given scores to each lens across a number of criteria, the 70-300 scores 8.6 and the 100-400 scores 7.6
The 70-300 is the obvious choice. I just wonder whether I would regret not having that extra bit of reach.
I know a few guys here have the 100-400, and it's a fab lens. Does anyone have the 70-300 L?
Cheers,
Jason.