Lens choices

[AndyCh]

I am jetting off to the Falkland Islands soon and plan to make the most of the opportunities to shoot the local wildlife. This includes penguins, sea lions, elephant seals, birds of prey etc. I need to travel as light as possible but don't want to compromise on quality.  I will be taking my 7D, 50mm and 17-40mm lenses as well as a tripod. I am looking at either the Canon 70-300mm L or the 100-400mm L. Both have their pros and cons so would like to hear from people who have experience of both these lenses. 

[Duncan_Andison]

I am jetting off to the Falkland Islands soon and plan to make the most of the opportunities to shoot the local wildlife. This includes penguins, sea lions, elephant seals, birds of prey etc. I need to travel as light as possible but don't want to compromise on quality.  I will be taking my 7D, 50mm and 17-40mm lenses as well as a tripod. I am looking at either the Canon 70-300mm L or the 100-400mm L. Both have their pros and cons so would like to hear from people who have experience of both these lenses. 

 

I used to have the 100-400L when I had my Canon gear. I loved the lens to be honest. It was sharp and I rather liked the push/pull motion, it made for very quick adjustments throughout the range. The IS was excellent as well. Possibly a little weighty but in my opinion, worth it. The 17-40 & 100-400L were the first two lenses in the bag most days

 

I don't have any experience of the 70-300 so I cannot offer a comparison between the two. 

[David Kilpatrick]

Reach is everything, so prefer the 100-400mm if you can carry the weight.

[Jill Morgan]

i had the opportunity to use a 100-400 last month for a weekend, and yes, take it if you can. It is weighty, but for wildlife, I wonderful choice.

 

Jill

[Pakodominguez]

there is no tele that is long enough... take a x2 extender with your 100-400 mm

[AndyCh]

Thanks for the comments, the reach will be important, so the 100-400 it will be.