Rent or Buy

[Joe Butch]

I'm torn between renting a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM for $68 for 1 week and purchasing a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM for $197 (and keeping it forever)

I need the lens for my upcoming trip to Alaska.

[OsmosisStudios]

Rent the 100-400.

The 75-300 non-IS isn't that great, and you'll want that extra 100mm for Alaska: trust me.

[inkista]

My personal druthers would be to rent the 100-400L, because I don't go to Alaska all that often. I'd also look into weather-proofing it. If you want a good wildlife lens, the 100-400 has it all over the 75-300 III for many many reasons.

1. The reach. The difference between 300mm and 400mm is not trivial. 400mm is the minimum most birders will tell you you need if you're interested in the feathered ones. 300mm is the minimum for large wildlife, and you will often want more.
   
   
2. The sharpness. The 100-400 @400mm is going to be dang sharper than the 75-300 III @300mm. Trust me, I own the 75-300 III. I know.
   
   
3. The aperture. The 100-400 can be used wide open @f/5.6 and still be relatively sharp. The 75-300 III has to be stopped down to at least f/8 to have any sharpness at all, particularly at the 300mm end of the range.
   
   
4. IS Stabilization. The 1/focal_length rule states that in order to eliminate camera shake blur from an image, you need to be shooting with a shutter speed of at least 1/focal_length or faster. With a 50mm lens, that just means 1/50s or faster. But with a 300mm lens, 1/300s or faster. And with a 400mm lens, 1/400s or faster. Assuming you've got good handholding technique. With stabilization, you can cut that down by at least two stops. So, the 100-400@400mm can shoot at f/5.6 and only needs to be at 1/100s or faster. The 75-300 III @300mm needs to be around f/8 and 1/300s or faster.
   
   
5. USM (ultrasonic motor). The 100-400L is going to lock focus a bit faster than the 75-300 III, because it has a USM motor moving the glass around. It's also going to make a lot less noise doing it. I've used the 75-300 III. It's dog slow compared to my 400 f/5.6L (prime. It AFs faster than the 100-400L, btw.)

The 75-300 III is not a great lens. It's a good cheap one. It'll be cheaper, much smaller and lighter, and it's way stealthier than the 100-400L, being black plastic, not white metal. But there are better alternatives. But the 100-400L just whomps it on every level for wildlife photography.

The other two alternatives I'd recommend looking at that are probably better permanent purchases, if you can't pony up for the EF 70-300 IS USM, or the EF 70-200 f/4L USM:

Sigma 70-300 APO. This lens tests out as a better optical performer than the creaky old 75-300 design. There's also an OS stabilized version, but it will, of course, cost more than the 75-300. The non-stabilized one is in roughly the same price range.

EF-S 55-250 IS. It's $250, but it is sharper, stabilized, and a good companion to the 18-55 kit lens. No USM, though.

Whatever you get, be sure to practice with it before you go--telephoto technique is quite different from shooting with a walkaround. And you could easily be setting yourself up for disappointment if you don't understand how things work. I'd recommend reading this guide on getting sharp telephoto images written by lensrentals.com's Roger Cicala.

[Joe Butch]

Thanks for the quick replies.

You guys sold me on renting the 100-400.

[Quo Fan]

Rent it for longer than you need it, and get it delivered a few days before you leave. That way you have time to practice with the lens and get used to the weight of it.

[BCampbell]

One, you can pick up the 75-300 for closer to $100 on ebay or other used outlets.

Two, if you think you'll keep shooting wildlife, it would be nice to have the reach. I have the 75-300, and i hsoot a lot of wildlife with it. And it's true that the lens objectively sucks. There are no two ways about it. But shooting with it is better than not shooting without it.

You will absolutely get much, much better inage quality with the 100-400. I want one, very badly. But if you have never used a telephoto, have never shot wildlife with a telephoto, and are going to an unfamiliar area, I'm not sure the lens is going to be the deciding factor here.

You can easily "rent" the 75-300 for as long as you want for about $10-$20, by buying it used and reselling later. You could use it while you save for the 70-300 IS, for example.

But, in short, if I were making the decision, I would rent. But that's because I lust after that 100-400, and I feel comfortable taking those kinds of long wildlife shots, and I know that my lens is a restriction. Those things may not be true for you. I can see an argument for buying the crap lens. But I would rent.