OwlHarbor Loc: Pacific North West USA

I have the discontinued Canon 75-300 1.4 1.5 IS weight .88 lb and looking to move to the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM UD 2.3 lbs or replacing the old lens with the new Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM 3.44 lbs I have a Canon 90D and Ti6. I am looking for thoughts and ideas to move forward. Replies welcome

bleirer

Comparison site https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Haydon

I have the 70-300 4-5.6L and find it a good lens but I bought it way before the v2 of the 100-400L was available. If I could redo my choices, I'd be in line for the EF 100-400 F4.5-5.6L II. That lens is considerably more versatile and can safely take a teleconverter. The 70-300 F4-5.6L cannot take the teleconverter.

BB4A

No Brainer. Buy the 100-400L IS II USM. Best lens in this class, without question.

Marg Loc: Canadian transplanted to NW Alabama

I replaced my 75-300 with 100-400 (purchased used) and love it. Because of its weight and the fact that this older lady prefers to handhold I found it necessary to significantly increase the shutter speed but not really an issue in reasonably good light.

bleirer

Other contenders below $2k would be the possibly sharper EF 300mm f/4L IS and the EF 400mm f/5.6L( not IS). On a budget consider the non L Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II not quite as sharp as the 100-400 but a real bargain for the money.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Take a look at this thread: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-655303-1.html and read the paragraphs in Amfoto1’s response on the various 70-300 versions and the 75-300. Very comprehensive comparison.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

Huge difference in price, quality and lens build. I had the 70-300 and found it generally fine. The version II is very highly rated. There is also the 70-300L lens which is also very highly rated.

Zooman 1

I have and use both. Depending on what you photograph, general photography I would go with the 70-300, more nature oriented I would go with the 100-400.

OwlHarbor Loc: Pacific North West USA

Thank you all for your thoughts and information. I use my Canon 17-40mm 1.4 L USM often but when I am taking pictures of wildlife and family, friends it helps to be at a distance. I do have an almost 7 lb lens Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM that I would have to be much beefer to hand shoot for long. It's a beautiful piece of glass but heavy and does need a substantial tripod. This morning I am still debating which one to pick as weight does make a difference. It's the difference between the spur of the moment thing. If the lens is on your camera ready to go it's easier to take that pic. So the choice for me is to pick one of the two. The other thing I did not consider when travel picks up again in the future I have read that it is good to carry camera and perhaps two lens that will cover most of what you need.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First thing we might want to do is determine exactly what lens you've got... There have been seven different Canon 75-300mm:
- EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 (1991)
- EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM (1992)
- EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II (1995)
- EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II USM (1995)
- EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (1995, 1st image stabilized lens)
- EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (currently avail.)
- EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM (currently avail.)

All have been discontinued but the last two, both of which were introduced in 1999.

Just in case you don't know "USM" stands for "ultrasonic" focusing motor. The lenses that have that will focus faster than the versions without, which use a "micro motor".

"IS" stands for "Image Stabilization", which Canon introduced to the world of interchangeable lens, SLR photography in 1995 with a 75-300mm lens. Nikon had put their similar VR in a non-interchangeable lens point-n-shoot camera the year before. But in SLRs and then DSLRs, Canon was pretty much the "only game in town" for almost ten years.Many people, me included, became Canon users in some part because of IS.

Although there are some differences between them, Canon's 75-300mm lenses have long been their cheapest and least capable. If yours is the IS version, it's up to 25 years old. However, that lens doesn't weight .88 lb. It's close to 1.5 lb., in fact.

ANY of the Canon 70-300mm OR 100-400mm lenses would be an improvement over ANY of the Canon 75-300mm. All the 70-300s and both versions of the 100-400 have had significantly better image quality than any of the 75-300s. All the 70-300s and 100-400s have also had both IS and USM, helping make sharper handheld shots and providing faster focusing. Those were only available on select 75-300s and only the 1995 lens had both. The 70-300s and 100-400s also are closer focusing and, especially the L's, are better built.

There have been four Canon 70-300s:
- EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM "DO" (2004) used "diffractive optics" to make it more compact... but not a lot and there's no savings of weight. It originally was the most expensive at around $1400, but has been discontinued for a while and now usually sells for $400 to $500.
- EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (2005) was only recently discontinued and superseded by a new model. It's a mid-priced, good performer that's reasonably compact moderate weight a little under 1.5 lb.
- EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6"L" IS USM (2010) is the best built and is painted off-white, as might be expected with an L-series telephoto. It's also got the best image quality of the 70-300s by a small margin, uses more advanced IS that gives a little more assistance and is the only one that can optionally be fitted with a tripod collar (sold separately). This lens is still in production and sells for around $1300. While still reasonable compact, it is a bit larger diameter and the heaviest of the 70-300s at a little under 2.5 lb. (without the tripod ring, which would add a couple oz.)
- EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 "II" IS USM (2016) is the newest model, an update of the original version from 2005 with improved image stabilization, is one of the first lenses to use Canon's new "Nano USM" (which is fast like USM and super quiet like STM), and is the first Canon lens to feature a user programmable LCD distance scale. Like it's predecessor it is fairly compact and roughly 1.5 lb. I think it's currently selling for around $500.

There have been two Canon 100-400mm:
- EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (1998) "push/pull" zoom design is pretty unusual among Canon zooms. People seem to either love or hate that type of zoom. It's very fast acting, but can be more prone to shake blur. This lens' IS helps offset that, though. It uses an earlier form of IS that MUST be turned off if the lens is locked down on a tripod or used in any way that eliminates all movement.... because the IS can "go crazy" when there's no camera shake for it to counteract, actually causing image shake blur. But for handheld use, monopods or a loose gimbal on a tripod, use the IS. It works. This lens also has a strange nuance... it tends to "go soft" whenever a filter.... any filter, even very good ones... is fitted to it. I don't know why. Lens is very well built adn off-white like an L-series telephoto, and is close focusing with very high image quality, fast autofocus and quite good close focusing ability. It weighs a little over 3 lb., but that includes the supplied tripod mounting ring. It's rarely found new any more (was about $1200 with close-out pricing). Used it can be around $1000 or a little less. (Tamron and Sigma have both introduced their own 100-400s, costing around $800 or $700, respectively).
- EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM "II" (2014) is the long-anticipated update of the previous lens. It's now a more standard two-ring zoom. It's also very well built and gained a little weight to about 3.75 lb. It's about the same size as the earlier lens and is still quite "hand holdable", I can tell you from a lot of personal experience. It has updated, higher performance IS (it is not susceptible to problems on tripods), has extremely high image quality and is even closer focusing than the previous model (able to do around 1/3 life size). It costs the most of any of the lenses, at around $2200 right now (it was on sale for slightly under $2000 recently... it might go on sale near Christmas). It also includes the a tripod mounting ring.

All these lenses would be an improvement. Normally I'd just point you to the web site listed above to see for yourself, but there's a problem in that the 75-300mm "IS, USM" lens, which I think is what you have, is so old that there aren't any online tests of it to show you. Compareing above lenses with of the more recent 75-300mm might give you some idea, since the 75-300s aren't all that different in terms of image quality. The old IS/USM version has faster AF than the non-USM... and the IS/USM version also has IS, even if it's an early version of it, which all the other 75-300s lack.

Here's are links that compares the image quality of the EF 75-300mm "III" (non-IS, non-USM) with the current....

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM "II": https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=776&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1077&Sample=0&CameraComp=963&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6"L" IS USM: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=776&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=963&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM "II": https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=776&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Those comparisons are set up with the lenses on 7D Mark II, which is an APS-C format camera, same as your 80D. However, the 7DII is slightly lower resolution: 20MP versus 24MP. The higher resolution of your 80D will likely be a little more demanding of "good glass". That's usually the case.

At those links, you can change the focal length and/or lens aperture to see how they compare at different settings. You also will find more detailed reviews of the 70-300mm and 100-400mm lenses. There are other comparison tools, too. While the above looks at image sharpness and resolution using a standardized test target, and also illustrates chromatic aberration when it's present in a lens, other side-by-side comparisons can be done with regard to lens distortion, vignetting, and general specifications. In most cases here also are some "real world" sample images shot with each lens.

Personally I use the EF 100-400mm L IS USM "II" and it's a great lens. I have even used it a little with Canon EF 1.4X II teleconverter, and that works surprisingly well too. It is the only lens on this list that uses a fluorite element, which is something Canon does with many of their premium lenses. In fact, they've done so for over three decades. (Nikon has also begun using fluorite in some of their super telephotos.) Fluorite adds to the cost of a lens, but it eliminates virtually all chromatic aberration, which is a common problem in telephoto lenses (and is really severe in the 75-300mm III at the 300mm end of the zoom range). There is almost no CA in the 100-400 II. There's very little in the 70-300 L, too.

It really comes down to whether or not you need that extra 100mm of focal length that the 100-400mm II offers... Or if you would prefer the slightly smaller, approx. 1.25 lb. lighter 70-300mm L. Both are great lenses.

Obviously, there is also cost to consider. The 100-400mm II is the most expensive of the option you're considering. The 70-300mm L is not cheap, either, although it costs considerably less than the 100-400 II. There are other, smaller, lighter, less expensive options, too. And there may be savings buying used, if you wish. Canon USA also offers refurbished lenses at a discount direct from their website. Those are typically current and relatively recent models... often are simply demo units from trade shows or returned from stores, which have seen relatively little real use.... and have the same warranty as new.

Whatever you decide, I am pretty sure you'll be happy with your upgrade!

User ID

Thoroughly thought out, so just do it.

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

I'm late to this discussion, but here's my input. I resisted buying a DSLR for a long time because of size and weight, accepting the image quality of a couple of different Canon superzoom/bridge cameras. I finally decided it was time to seriously consider a DSLR and did some research. Four years ago I bought an 80D and the primary reason was the EF 70-300 IS II USM lens, as it gave me the reach I wanted (mostly for road racing photography) at a reasonable size and weight. I have been very happy with it. I have seriously considered the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, but have so far resisted primarily due to the weight as I'm walking all around the race track. Other factors are that the short end is a little longer than I would like, and the extra 100mm on the long end isn't likely to get much use. I don't plan on moving to a FF camera, and will likely buy a 90D in the not too distant future. If you have already purchased a lens, I would be interested to know what you decided on.