When Canon announced the 100-300mm f2.8 L, we were pretty excited by the idea. I immediately thought that sports photographers would be most reaching for it. Indeed, it’s quite a revolutionary lens in the mirrorless landscape. But at the same time, most photographers who use it use it for wildlife. And with that in mind, I started to scratch my head. Canon already has its exceptional 100-500mm L lens. For years, I’ve used this lens and known that it’s incredibly effective for that type of work. So, after some time away from both the 100-300mm and the 100-500mm, I’ve channeled a lot of thoughts into which one photographer should use.
For reference you can check out our Canon 100-500mm L lens review along with our Canon 100-300mm f2.8 L lens review.
Table of Contents
Hardware
This can’t be said any other way: I carried around the 100-300mm f2.8 L for several hours and never want to do it again. It’s big, heavy, touch to maneuver with around dense vegetation, and not worth it for wildlife photography. Canon’s highest megapixel camera body as of writing this article has around 45MP. If they ever get one that’s higher, then things might change for wildlife because you’ll have a more decent crop range in-camera. And as it is, we don’t think that Canon is going to invest any revolutionary tech into their APS-C cameras. So, let’s ignore the EOS R7 for this. We’ve reviewed that camera and know how good it is, but there’s better out there for not much more money.
In contrast, the 100-500mm is a lens that I’ve brought around for hours and used pretty effortlessly. It was joy and gave us all the reach and practical apertures we needed. It’s also more affordable.
When you’re shooting photos of wildlife, you really need reach more than anything else. And the 100-500mm does that so much better.
Focusing
In terms of autofocus, both lenses do an incredible job. We’ve barely missed shots with both lenses. Of course, a lot of this can have something to do with the camera. With all of Canon’s cameras, we’ve nailed great photos with both the 100-300mm and the 100-500mm. But generally speaking, they both perform really well.
There was a time when I tested the 100-500mm for sports photography even with the old Canon EOS R original. And when photographing kickball happening, even that camera and the 100-500mm held its own.
Really, there is a negligible difference between the two in practical terms when going out there to photograph.
Image Quality
Truly, both of these lenses can take beautiful photos. To get more of the bokeh effect with the 100-300mm, you need to get closer to your subject because of the limited range. But to get it with the 100-500mm from far away is pretty simple. Sharpness between both I don’t think is even worth talking about because they’re both good and things can practically be fixed with post-production.
Conclusions
Honestly, for what it’s worth, the 100-500mm is just overall a better lens. It’s lighter, more affordable, practical, and it can provide you with all the reach you need as a wildlife photographer.