11-12-2011, 09:51 PM
I lean towards urban and captive wildlife, and I went for both the 70-300L and 100-400L. I started with the 100-400L as at the time that was the only choice. The 70-300L did not exist yet. I have taken 10's or even 100's of thousands of shots with the 100-400L now, and do love the lens. It's good enough wide open at 400mm, the push-pull zoom is much better for fast reaction than twist zoom. The weight was a bit much initially but you get used to it quickly.
So why then did I also get the 70-300L? My main reason at the time was water resistance. The 100-400L would have internal moisture problems if you use it unprotected in the rain like I did. The 70-300L is much better in that regard. Although it wasn't a factor at the time, I have found the reduced size compared to the 100-400L to be a benefit. Right now I'm away from home at the end of the 2nd day of 3 day travel. I just didn't have room in my bags to carry the 100-400L, and opted to only take the 70-300L.
The 70-300L did prove a benefit already. The place I went to yesterday had captive birds of prey. They were mostly held indoors with natural lighting only. And it wasn't a sunny day. I found myself even using ISO6400 at times and even then I was getting shutter times of only 1/20s or even longer. At maximum focal length, I still had a good hit rate at 1/20s, and it only really dropped below 50% "acceptably sharp" rate below 1/10s. Hand held. You're never going to pixel peep sharpness at ISO6400 regardless. For comparison, I could not dream of these times with the older IS system of the 100-400L, where I'd say about 1/40s or 1/60s was my 50% rate limit. Even allowing for the extra focal length you do feel the difference when you push the IS to its limits and then some. Obviously this only applies to the cases where the subject does not move. 1/10s is an eternity for some wildlife. There are times I wished I had 400mm instead of 300mm though and I'm still not a fan of the twist zoom for speed of response compared to push-pull.
Personally the 70-200 series are largely uninteresting. The depth of field of the 70-300L and 100-400L are already on the low side for wildlife, so I prefer to stop down even when light allows. The shorter focal length, shorter zoom range, and requirement to add an extender to get the longer focal lengths are all major negatives in this use. The 70-200 f/2.8 II is the only one I'd consider seriously using at 400mm, although the older ones might be acceptable at 280mm.
Of course I'm only writing about my wildlife usage. Other scenarios may vary.
So why then did I also get the 70-300L? My main reason at the time was water resistance. The 100-400L would have internal moisture problems if you use it unprotected in the rain like I did. The 70-300L is much better in that regard. Although it wasn't a factor at the time, I have found the reduced size compared to the 100-400L to be a benefit. Right now I'm away from home at the end of the 2nd day of 3 day travel. I just didn't have room in my bags to carry the 100-400L, and opted to only take the 70-300L.
The 70-300L did prove a benefit already. The place I went to yesterday had captive birds of prey. They were mostly held indoors with natural lighting only. And it wasn't a sunny day. I found myself even using ISO6400 at times and even then I was getting shutter times of only 1/20s or even longer. At maximum focal length, I still had a good hit rate at 1/20s, and it only really dropped below 50% "acceptably sharp" rate below 1/10s. Hand held. You're never going to pixel peep sharpness at ISO6400 regardless. For comparison, I could not dream of these times with the older IS system of the 100-400L, where I'd say about 1/40s or 1/60s was my 50% rate limit. Even allowing for the extra focal length you do feel the difference when you push the IS to its limits and then some. Obviously this only applies to the cases where the subject does not move. 1/10s is an eternity for some wildlife. There are times I wished I had 400mm instead of 300mm though and I'm still not a fan of the twist zoom for speed of response compared to push-pull.
Personally the 70-200 series are largely uninteresting. The depth of field of the 70-300L and 100-400L are already on the low side for wildlife, so I prefer to stop down even when light allows. The shorter focal length, shorter zoom range, and requirement to add an extender to get the longer focal lengths are all major negatives in this use. The 70-200 f/2.8 II is the only one I'd consider seriously using at 400mm, although the older ones might be acceptable at 280mm.
Of course I'm only writing about my wildlife usage. Other scenarios may vary.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.