#1  
Old 20-01-2012, 09:49 AM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Which Canon tele-zoom?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 20-01-2012, 10:07 AM
Atlantis69 (Simon)
Registered User

Atlantis69 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 49
Any chance you are insterested in getting a 70-200 2.8 + 2x Extender?

I was speaking to a Canon engineer recently, and they mentioned that the new 70-200 II range coupled with the new III extenders produce better quality images than the 100-400. Just throwing another option into the mix for you.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 20-01-2012, 11:12 AM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Nope, it's down to the two listed. I already had a 70-200 plus 1.4x extender. I don't want to be swapping extenders in and out.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20-01-2012, 11:35 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
You've got 1.6x reach on your 7D.

The 70-300 then acts as a 112-480 lens, which is plenty ample for wildlife.



H
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-01-2012, 11:52 AM
AndyK's Avatar
AndyK (Andy)
VK2AAK

AndyK is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Darawank NSW 2428 Australia
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by koputai View Post
...
EF 100 - 400mm F/4.5-5.6 L IS (the dust pump)
I've owned one for some 5 years and the "dust pump" thing is a complete myth.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20-01-2012, 12:30 PM
leon's Avatar
leon
Registered User

leon is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ballarat
Posts: 10,945
If you really want something for wild life shooting consider the Canon 400mm F/5.6L, it fast, light and crystal clear, a truly great lens, and it is quite cheap into the bargain, just ask Chris (Hotspur) he loves his and gets some awesome pics.

Leon
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 20-01-2012, 12:34 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Thanks Leon, but it has to be a zoom.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 20-01-2012, 03:07 PM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,920
Hi Jason

Can’t comment on the 2 lenses but is “minimum close focus” an important requirement? If so, which lens has the closer focusing?

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 20-01-2012, 05:00 PM
spearo's Avatar
spearo (Frank)
accepts all donations

spearo is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Braidwood (outskirts)
Posts: 2,280
Hi
Tough decision...all Canon lenses are nice (I want them all...)

I own the 100-400L IS USM.

No issue with IS or focus.

I used a 300 (Tamron) for a while but felt i needed that extra bit of reach especially for BIF/wildlife.

I wish I could afford a fast 500.

frank
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 20-01-2012, 05:20 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis View Post
Hi Jason

Can’t comment on the 2 lenses but is “minimum close focus” an important requirement? If so, which lens has the closer focusing?
Good point Dennis, close focus could well be an important point.
The 70-300 is 1.20m, the 100-400 is 1.80m. They have the same magnification at those distances.

I must say I'm pretty set on the 70-300L.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 20-01-2012, 05:49 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Do it.

Then, tell us how nice it is so I can get gearlust.

H
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 07:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement