OwlHarbor Loc: Pacific North West USA

What are your thoughts on these lenses as choosing one over the other I will be using it on a Canon 90D. I am replacing my Canon EF 70-300 4-5.6L IS lens (it's discontinued) My Canon EF 17-40mm L USM is the one I use the most often unless I need more reach. I had considered the Canon EF 100-400 4-5.6L IS USM which is about $250 less than the 28-300. The 28-300 is the push-pull zoom while the newer ones use the twist.

There is about $1100 difference and not seeing that amount advantage. I used to backpack and camp and intend on doing that again but will not need to go as fast and have more available time. I expect that I will take my Canon EF 50mm 1.4, the Canon EF 17-40mm L USM and ??

dick ranez

to begin with, the 70-300L is not discontinued although the 70-300 is non-L version 1 is. It has been replaced with a newer (and lighter) version. the two lenses you mentioned the 28-300 and the 100-400 are both heavy to take backpacking. If your current lens works, I'd continue to use it. If it doesn't, I would see your choice as between a 70-300 non L version 2 or the 100-400L ver 2. Then it's just a budget question.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The EF 70-300 IS II (the $500 new and non L lens) is the version to bring for a backpacking trip. An L lens really never belongs in an overnight backpack unless you're bringing just one lens and preferably a sherpa for all the camera equipment. The 50 is so close to the 17-40, the 17-40 would be the more logical choice. Crop the results from 40mm rather than worrying about the need for a longer zoom.

The 100-400L II is a wonderfully versatile lens, but large, heavy and expensive. When I bring that lens, I try to bring just the 1.4x extender and my extension tubes. If I happen on something that needs less than 100mm, too bad, I just don't take that picture.

What is the issue with the 70-300L? It too is large, heavy and expense, but if you own already, what is the issue? It performs fine, wonderful colors and plenty of sharpness. Its expensiveness comes from the ruggedness of the design, built like a tank, unlike all the non L 70-300 ish Canon offerings. As noted by others, this L lens is still a current entry in the Canon EF catalog.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Absolutely !

The 28-300 is a very dated/expensive/heavy lens. The latest Tamron version 28-300 would be a better choice for backpacking !
.

ELNikkor

Not a fan of redundancy. 17-40 + 70-300. The 50 hardly weighs a thing, is fast, and fills in between the 40 and 70.

MountainDave

I do a lot of backpacking, hiking and climbing with my cameras. Typically, there is a lot of elevation gain at altitude, so weight is critical. Most of the time, I bring my 77D vs my 5D IV due to weight. The lens(s) I choose depends on the anticipated scenery. I usually just bring my 24-70 2.8L II. Second most common would be my 70-200 f/4L II combined with the nearly weightless 40mm 2.8. Occasionally, I'll bring the 16-35 f/4 plus a 50 1.8 STM. If I anticipate a lot of wildflowers, I'll opt for the 100 2.8L plus 40mm. I have the fabulous 100-400L II but it is just too big and too heavy for any serious hike, climb or backpack. I used to own the 70-300 USM II which is not a bad lens but the 70-200L is far superior. In any event, I'm choosing image quality over range. I'm a big fan of the 40mm which renders beautiful, sharp images.

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

If it were me, my answer would be none of the above. I have an 80D and I would only take my EF-S 18-135 if I was going to be hiking around. If I need more reach, I use my EF 70-300 IS II USM, but I don't think I would want to do any serious hiking with it. Due to the higher resolution of the 90D, you have even more "cropability" with the 90D than my 24 MP 80D. However, if I was going to be doing any serious hiking, I would leave the 80D at home (or the campsite) and take my Canon G5X Mk II. The G5X is a great little camera with a 1" sensor, excellent IQ and a FF equivalent of 24-120 lens. It's not inexpensive for a compact camera ($900), but is an excellent travel or "walking around" camera; and it has a viewfinder (a requirement for me). The G5X will fit in a shirt pocket.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I have much the same attitude, but with the Canon G9X model. It fits in the front shorts pocket making it always available, even with the pack on. Captures in RAW. The onboard flash and various shooting modes make it so you can get any shot with some creative thinking and maximizing all the camera controls.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I agree with a previous response... the Canon EF 70-300mm "L" is not discontinued.

It's also smaller and lighter than the Canon EF 28-300mm "L". The 28-300mm is more than 1.5 inch longer, 1/4 larger diameter and nearly 1.5 lb. heavier (the 70-300 weight doesn't include the optional tripod collar, if you have that fitted to your lens). Perhaps most importantly, the 70-300mm has noticeably better image quality at all the focal lengths they share. See for yourself: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

So, in other words, that would be more of a downgrade than an improvement.

The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM "II", however, is another story. It's superb. Image quality as good or better than some primes and is better than either the 70-300mm L or the 28-300mm at most focal lengths they all share... plus it gives you another 100mm of telephoto reach, which might be helpful if you are shooting wildlife. While the 100-400 II has image quality notably better than the 28-300mm, compared to the very good IQ of your 70-300mm L, which has very good image quality, the 100-400mm II out resolves it by a small margin between 200 and 300mm. The differences will be most noticeable on a camera with an ultra dense sensor, like the 32.5MP 90D. Very high resolution cameras aren't very forgiving of lens short-comings. The only drawback is that the 100-400mm is bigger and heavier than your 70-300 L. It's actually almost exactly the same size and weight as the EF 28-300mm L. At some focal lengths the 100-400mm also is slightly "slower", too. It's f/4.5 at 100mm, where your 70-300mm is f/4. But at other focal lengths it's slightly "faster".... At 300mm the 100-400mm is f/5, while your lens is f/5.6. Compare 70-300 L versus 100-400 L II image quality here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1

Compare the specs of 70-300 L, 28-300 L and 100-400 L II here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Canon_EF_70-300mm_f_4-5.6L_IS_USM_Lens_vs_Canon_EF_28-300mm_f_3.5-5.6L_IS_USM_Lens_vs_Canon_EF_100-400mm_f_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM_Lens/BHitems/732106-USA_319784-USA_1092632-REG

If you're seeking to improve your lens kit, possibly a better swap you might make is trade in the EF 17-40L for an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM... that gets you just as good image quality, an f/2.8 aperture, image stabilization and a wider range of focal lengths (with larger aperture and 50mm focal length in the zoom, you might not need to carry your 50mm too). Compare image quality here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

An alternative, if you don't need the large f/2.8 aperture, but would find a wider angle of view handy at times, is the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's also got high image quality, as well as a bigger range of focal lengths... both wider and longer. Plus there's IS. The "cost" is the smaller and variable lens aperture. Still, if you have a fast prime or two, that may not be a concern. Compare image quality 17-40L versus 15-85mm here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=675&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Finally, one more alternative is the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM, which some think is a close tie as one of the best wide angle lenses from any manufacturer, with Canon's larger, heavier, more expensive EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM. It offers less focal length range than the other options here, but has exceptional image quality, L-series build quality and features IS. It's similar in size and weight to the EF-S 17-55mm... and they are both slightly larger and a little heavier than the 17-40 or 15-85mm. Compare image quality versus your 17-40L here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=979&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

You can compare the specs of these four wider zooms here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Canon_EF_17-40mm_f_4L_USM_Lens_vs_Canon_EF-S_17-55mm_f_2.8_IS_USM_Lens_vs_Canon_EF-S_15-85mm_f_3.5-5.6_IS_USM_Lens_vs_Canon_EF_16-35mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Lens/BHitems/279582-USA_425812-USA_647013-USA_1051475-USA

Have fun shopping!