Which is better, Canon 70-300 lens or Canon 100-400 lens?

I like ecological photography. Personally, I prefer 100-400 lens.

Canon lens group has classic Xiaobai (EF 70-200mm f/2.8L is III USM) and Dabai (EfKloc-0/00-400mm f/4.5-5.6L is II USM) lenses, while Ef70-300mm f/4-5.6L is USM lenses, which makes people feel a little "chicken" from the focal length.

According to the lens materials, the EF70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens has 14 group 19 lens, there are two UD (ultra-low dispersion) lenses in the optical element, and the Dabai EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM lens has. Up to the periphery of the blurred image, high image quality is achieved.

Therefore, Dabai EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM lens covers the focal length range from 100mm to telephoto 400 mm, and its materials, workmanship, image quality and portability are all good, which has won unanimous praise from professional photographers in the fields of ecology and sports. Personal recommendation 100-400 lens.

Here are some short clips that I took with the Great White Generation:

Which is better, Canon 70-300 lens or Canon 100-400 lens?

Thanks to Wukong for inviting me!

I don't know where the starting point of this question is. There are many similar questions in Wukong, regardless of the premise or demand, but an extremely open question, even if you want to help answer, often feel that you can't start.

In this case, to say the least, we can only "touch the elephant with the blind".

Canon 70-300 lens

There are four Canon 70-300mm focal length lenses:

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L is USM.

EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO is USM.

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is USM.

Ef 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM

Which one should we say is good? I really can't say. Pick a "fat white" that everyone likes.

In fact, Canon's website has made it very clear: L-level telephoto zoom, 4-level anti-shake, dustproof and waterproof.

In terms of focal length, it covers the "golden focal length" of portrait photography-70-135m. With the aperture of f/4.0, the background blur is no problem. Long-distance shooting of scenery, sports, animals, flowers and streets can also be competent. If you shoot a bird, the focal length is a little short, and the weight is 1050g. Two UD (ultra-low dispersion) lenses are used in the optical structure, which can achieve high-quality imaging in the full focal length range. The annular USM focusing motor is an image stabilizer and anti-fouling fluorine coating. Photography enthusiasts and professional photographers prefer to use this large zoom lens.

Canon 100-400

We won't list the parameters. This lens, commonly known as "Dabai", is also Canon's L-class telephoto zoom lens. By introducing Canon's ASC coating technology, the effect of suppressing ghost and glare is better, and the lens quality is better than "fat white". Technically, it is also dustproof and waterproof. The annular USM focusing motor and IS image stabilizer are similar to "fat white", that is, the weight is1640g.

In terms of focal length, the practical range is much better than 70-300mm, and the portrait to be photographed also covers the focal length of 100- 135mm, and the telephoto end reaches 400mm, which is more practical for friends who like to shoot birds (big birds can, but birds can't reach it, in fact, 400mm is still a little short), especially "at 40000"

Comprehensive suggestion

Different standards have different lens uses, and there is no absolute difference between good and bad. The lens that suits you is the really good lens. I suggest buying these two directly 100-400. In fact, this lens is also the conventional focal length of outdoor extreme scenery photography. In order to take portraits, you may just use 50mm or 85mm, or 70-200mm as the "necessary portrait lens of the studio".

70-300mm is neither long nor short. To be honest, it is not practical or cost-effective. Although the price of 100-400mm is almost twice as expensive as that of "Feibai", from the perspective of lens combination and investment, "Dabai" has a wider application range and higher lens quality, which is worth investing.

There are no stupid questions, only boring answers.

Thank you for watching!

When you ask this question, you should consider the question of money. You don't care whether the money is direct 100-400, and there is no need to ask questions here. I think what he means is that 100-400 is much more expensive than 70-300. Is it that good? Is it worth it? To put it bluntly, I don't have either head, and I don't know what it is. But I think the price of 70-300 is very poor, and 100-400 is too expensive, so we might as well go to extremes. 1000, buy an extra 75-300, which is basically enough for an enthusiast. If you are a professional or rich, please call 100-400 directly. My 75-300 heads have followed me for eleven years, and I can't cope with any good subject. Adding a close-up can also pretend to be a macro, and the price is one tenth of 100-400. It seems that my answer is a bit off topic, but it's not bad to think from another angle. The following are all taken by my 75-300 heads.

Which is better, Canon 70-300 lens or Canon 100-400 lens?

When choosing this kind of ultra-long lens equipment, it's really a bit tangled. The aperture of telephoto is basically the same, but their biggest difference lies in price, focal length and price. These three points are the core of choice.

If you like to shoot scenery, it is actually more economical to shoot 70-300 birds occasionally. It's not that long, but it's enough for the scenery. Moreover, the filter size is only 67mm, and the overall weight is acceptable, only 1050g, which is a relatively light telephoto lens. It is practical to shoot birds with a focal length of 700-300 when going out. The key is that the price is higher than 100-.

The biggest feature of Canon 100-400 is its longer focal length and wider shooting range. As a more professional telephoto lens, the filter size is changed to 77mm, and the overall weight of the lens reaches 1380g, which brings better image quality and super stable system, but the price is also much more expensive.

In fact, the two lenses are relatively easy to distinguish from each other in terms of overall performance. Practical 70-300 is very affordable, you can shoot anything. Although the focal length is shortened by 100mm, the close-range shooting of 70mm makes up for the lack of telephoto, which can be regarded as bringing out the best in each other.

1 00-400 is more expensive, with better picture quality, more prospects and better performance, but the overall weight has increased a lot, which is the lack of portability. If you don't care about the weight, you should pay more attention to the quality and performance, and you need to shoot farther scenes. Please choose 100-400 honestly.

While I was still struggling, I was thinking about my shooting needs. Do I really need such a long lens? Do I often go out to shoot such works? If I can still accept these advantages and disadvantages, I will not hesitate to choose the lens that suits me. I can't be wrong.

Among Canon telephoto lenses, except for the L lens, the above lens is my favorite, and I would like to recommend it to my friends.

In fact, as far as imaging quality is concerned, there is no need to buy an L-head. That's enough.

Ef 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM

suggested retail price

Rmb 4099

I didn't expand. There is no detailed description. You can go through my previous articles and questions and answers. I have answered many times.

100-400mm is good, but it is more expensive.

A few days ago, I saw a question "Why does Canon EOS camera have a low-pass filter?" In fact, this question is intrinsically related to my answer.

My answer is: because the standard of Canon lens design is too high, the resolution is too high, much higher than Nikon.

This is a fact.

Therefore, the Canon body must be equipped with a low-pass filter.

Therefore, Canon lens, as a person who has studied optical design like me, I am completely at ease to buy some amateur styles.

The difference between amateur style and professional style: professional, more perfect mechanical structure, able to resist temperature change and wear.

Other than that, there is no essential difference.

These two Canon lenses are very good, and the price is not low, mainly depending on the purpose.

1 and Canon 70-300 are more suitable for outdoor shooting. The scenery is good, the picture is compressed, the shooting details and the prospect are good. Lightweight, easy to carry. Usually it is no problem to shoot birds and animals. The price is lower than Canon 100-400 lens.

2. Canon 100-400 lens is a good lens for shooting animals and birds. The quality of bird hunting is good and the distance is close. It is also good to go out and shoot some distant animals, and ball games are also the best. Compared with Canon 70-300 lens, the scenery and close-up are worse, more expensive and inconvenient to carry.

Canon these two lenses have their own strengths, mainly depending on the purpose. Canon 70-300 is suitable and affordable. Suitable for shooting people, birds and distant views, light in weight and convenient to carry. If you like shooting birds or animals, please choose 100-400 ... Generally speaking, these two shots are good. It's not wrong to choose the right lens according to your own preferences. The following three egrets were shot at 70-300.

Which is better, Canon 70-300 lens or Canon 100-400 lens?

Canon 100-400mm, very good lens.

4000 yuan Canon 70-300mm is the mainstream choice at present.

Hello, my specific suggestions are as follows:

First of all, it's worth it. Obviously Canon 100-400mm is better.

Even the red circle of 70-300mm is not as good as Canon 100-400mm.

This is obvious.

Of course, the price of Canon 100-400mm is really not cheap.

For ordinary people, it is still very expensive.

Second, there are many models of Canon 70-300mm.

1, this one in red circle is actually the first choice with high cost performance, which is very worth recommending.

2. However, because Canon paid 4000 yuan for the second generation of 70-300mm, the red circle of 70-300mm is not recommended.

The 34,000 yuan Canon 70-300mm has a good reputation, and the imaging quality is really good for this price.

4, of course, there are cheaper 70-300mm, but the imaging quality is poor. Not worth recommending.

Fourth, if the budget is really limited and portability is pursued, Canon 55-250mm is good.

This Canon 55-250mm is a good thing for the poor, the so-called three treasures for the poor.

To sum up, if you have the strength, you can buy Canon 100-400mm, and a normal person can buy Canon 70-300 II for 4000 yuan. The first choice for pure entry-level economy is Canon 55-250 mm.

You didn't say why. I can only answer according to the characteristics of two shots!

70-300 first, I think you should mean the kind commonly known as "fat white".

The weight of this lens is about 1000g, which is equivalent to being relatively light in the optical head of this focal length. The image quality also belongs to the upper-middle level in zoom. If you use it to shoot telephoto scenery when traveling, it is a good choice, taking into account the weight, image quality and focal length, and the price is more cost-effective. Of course, if you travel mainly by car, your weight may be less sensitive.

The second branch, 100-400, I think it should mean "white rabbit".

This lens weighs about 1500g, and its image quality, weight, price and focal length are higher than 70-300.

Then the problem will be solved. To sum up, what 70-300 can do is that 100-400 can do it and do it better. And its price is the extra weight of 500g and the difference of more than 4000 yuan. Are you willing to bear it?

Canon 70-300 is a cold head, and few people buy it, mainly because its focal length is not suitable, and there are few lenses for workmanship and composition. This lens is only black, not as good as white (see picture), and the lens inside is not as good as Canon 70-200. 70300 is a wonderful head, shooting people far away and the picture quality is extremely poor. It is much shorter to shoot birds. It can be said that almost no one buys the 70-300 lens, and no one cares about the black one.

The first generation of Canon 100-400 is a push-pull lens, and it is also the only lens with this structure. This is a wonderful shot. Later, the first and second generations were changed to Rotary. 100-400 lens is also an inconvenient head. Shooting birds is too far, but the picture quality is much higher than 70-300. Some people buy this head mainly for two purposes, one is to shoot birds in the shed at a suitable distance, and the other is to shoot the scenery, which has a good effect.

If you have a choice between these two heads, I suggest you choose 100-400 and 70-300 without hesitation.

(The last portrait photo was taken with Canon lens 100-400, focal length 100, and aperture 4.5).