Posted by Howard Cihak on March 1, 2011 at 6:39 AM
Just curious, Bret. What led you to make the decision to switch? Have you seen any test results comparing the two lenses? Are you also getting the optional tripod bracket for the new lens, or are you planning on just mounting the camera to the tripod?
As a fellow 100-400 owner (looking at the 70-300's shorter length and lighter weight), I confess to be somewhat interested in the new lens myself.
Bret - you might have already seen this but there is a guy about half way down the page in the classifieds section that is wanting to buy a 100-400. He posted on the 14th.
Price looks fair. Wish I had the money (i.e. strong enough marriage) to take you up on that.
Howard: IQ on my 100-400 has been mostly acceptable, except at the longest reach, but it's never blown me away. I'm also not a fan of the push/pull zoom action and the dust it seems to vacuum into the sensor. The new 70-300 IQ reports have been exceedingly positive and it's not a push/pull. I couldn't find the tripod collar available anywhere yet but I will order it. The 70-300mm is also a bit smaller and lighter than the 100-400.
I'll write a full review after I've had some time w/ the new lens. I plan to use it a lot while in Death Valley for 2 weeks. We leave March 10. Look for a full review on my blog in April.
What???? You're not going to wait for the 200-400?
Not too long ago I swapped my old 100-400 for a 70-200 f4 IS and while I've been happy with the new lens I miss the 100-400. If I had the cash right now I'd jump all over it. If you still have it in May (not bloody likely) we can talk.
Bill: The 200-400 is about as large and heavy as my 500mm f/4. Nope, I ain't luggin' that beast around in my pack all day! It's also rumored to cost between $7,000 and $8,000.
No doubt I'll miss the reach of the 400mm but I do have a 2x extender that I can attach if/when needed. I use it for landscape, not wildlife, so the loss of speed isn't a big deal to me.
Here's your problem: If you had bigger dogs one of them could pack the 200-400. (though I shudder at the thought of one of my dogs blazing after a rabbit with a $7k lens strapped to his back).
Is it true that the new Canon 70-300 lens can not physically accept Canon TCs?
I believe that is true for the Canon TC's. The alternative is using a non-Canon TC, or adding and extension tube between the TC and lens. Of course, you lose infinity focus when using the extension tube option.
Hey Brett- We think alike. Sold my 100-400 on Craigslist and bought the 70-300 and love it. Lighter, fast focus for birds, very sharp. I did not order the kenko 1.4 yet. Want to see more reviews first. I have had the 70-300 out about 4 times with wildlife and like it a lot. You made a good choice.
Discussion
13 repliesAs a fellow 100-400 owner (looking at the 70-300's shorter length and lighter weight), I confess to be somewhat interested in the new lens myself.
Price looks fair. Wish I had the money (i.e. strong enough marriage) to take you up on that.
I'll write a full review after I've had some time w/ the new lens. I plan to use it a lot while in Death Valley for 2 weeks. We leave March 10. Look for a full review on my blog in April.
Not too long ago I swapped my old 100-400 for a 70-200 f4 IS and while I've been happy with the new lens I miss the 100-400. If I had the cash right now I'd jump all over it. If you still have it in May (not bloody likely) we can talk.
No doubt I'll miss the reach of the 400mm but I do have a 2x extender that I can attach if/when needed. I use it for landscape, not wildlife, so the loss of speed isn't a big deal to me.
Never mind.
Can you send me some links to any reviews for the new 70-300? Thanks!
I believe that is true for the Canon TC's. The alternative is using a non-Canon TC, or adding and extension tube between the TC and lens. Of course, you lose infinity focus when using the extension tube option.