lowside67 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Image quality: 70-300L IS vs. 100-400L IS version 1 | |
I had a 70-300L and now have a 100-400L II and there is no doubt that the 100-400 II is superior at every shared focal length, and adds the ability to go from 300-400. However, this comes at a significant cost/weight/size tradeoff.
If I was going on a wildlife trip with a 500mm prime and wanted a second lens to pair it with, I would seriously consider the 70-300 as I love how maneuverable and effortless it is, and it really is good glass with excellent sharpness from 70-250 and good sharpness from 250-300.
To make a long story short... both are good lenses, but the 100-400 II is worth the money and weight if you plan to always shoot at 300mm and the ability to zoom further to 400 would help even more.
Mark
EDIT:
Shasoc wrote:
There is no difference in IQ between the 70-300L IS and 100-400 version II, if that is your question.
I didn't see this post. I would agree between 100mm and about 250mm, from 250mm onwards the 70-300 is at its weakest and the 100-400 does definitely better it. I found that a great deal of my photos from my 70-300 were at 300 and I find that the 100-400 takes better photos at 300 or 400 than my 70-300. Hope this helps!
|