help! Canon 100-400 versus 300 f/4 L

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

04/22/2005 07:18:32 PM · #1

Money isn't exactly burning a hole in my pocket but would like some help on my next lens choice. I already have the 70-200 f/4L with 1.4 converter and was looking for some extra reach. The most obvious choice (for me) is the 100-400 but more recently I have been thinking of the 300 f/4L and either using my 1.4 or getting the 2x (loss of AF but hey).

Anybody else been through the thought process on these lenses? I already have a 280mm reach and wonder if the 300 would be underkill for the extra Â£Â£Â£'s

coolhar

04/22/2005 07:27:48 PM · #2

The 300 f4 (non-IS version) is a faster and sharper lens of the two, and should work well with the 1.4x (375); but it won't give you quite the reach or the zoom of the 100-400. What's your priority?

Edited to correct my faulty multiplication.

Make that 420, not 375 as originally stated, so the 300 w/1.4x gives you a bit more reach than the zoom w/o the 1.4x.

Message edited by author 2005-04-22 20:01:55.

lwkimages

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/22/2005 07:32:31 PM · #3

I have the 300 f4 (non-IS) and am constantly amazed at the quality. Absolutely crystal clear and gorgeous bokeh!! I don't have the 1.4x (nor 2.0) converter, but with the 1.6x reach with my 20D I have quite enough reach.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/22/2005 07:33:33 PM · #4

Thanks coolhar. The only primes I have are the 50 f/1.8 MK1 and 100 f/2.8 macro, they are reasonable short and easy to handle. I like the sound of the 300 but since I'm (currently) more of a stand still and zoom guy I wonder how I'd cope with a reasonably lengthy prime (with converter). It would be used mainly for birding and trips to the wildlife park and the close(ish) focussing of the 300 would help take semi macro flower shots (I think).

Oh, and I thought the 1.4 would take it to 420??

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

04/22/2005 07:34:32 PM · #5

Personally, I've been eyeing the 70-300 DO IS F/3.5-5.6. It's not an L, but gets very good reviews, and it's SMALL!

But it does carry an L price, you can get it at the cheapest place for around $1099 with a $40 rebate.

If your interested, I'll dig up where I read the review, but it was probably Luminous Landscape or Vivid Light Photography.

Message edited by author 2005-04-22 19:34:45.

ovenbird

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

04/22/2005 07:44:43 PM · #6

Before I bought my 100-400 IS I purchased a 300mm f/4 IS and 1.4x II TC. My reasoning was that since the 300 was a prime lens it would be sharper than the zoom and would give me an extra stop at 300mm and 20 extra mm with the TC at the same max aperture. Great plan right?

Once I got the lens I started using it and was overall very happy with how sharp it was and how well the IS worked but I found that the TC is a real pain in the neck. I tried the combo for a couple of months until I happened to find a deal on a used 100-400 IS.

I carried both lenses for a few outings and determined that when everything worked perfectly the 300 could give a slightly better picture at 300mm and at least comparable quality at 400/420mm. I was very surprised that the zoom held up so well against the prime.

I eventually ended up selling the 300 because I simply found that the zoom was more convenient. I almost always shoot the zoom wide open and at 400mm but it is really nice not to have to miss shots because the FL is too long.

Both are very good rigs.

Tom

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

04/22/2005 07:51:16 PM · #7

Thanks Tom, I was moving toward the 300 and better quality (even with the 1.4) but still feel its good to be able to pull back for 1 in 10 shots. I read all the comments over at fredmirandas place on the 100-400 and when I moved to the 300 there were many people that had sold the 100-400 for the 300.

The 300 on its own only gives me an extra 20mm to my current reach and spending Â£8-900 for that seems somewhat silly (during my lucid moments). sometimes I think I'll just stick a 2x on the 70-200 and have a good holiday with the savings!!

coolhar

04/22/2005 07:54:45 PM · #8

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

Well I could say I got math lessons from Laurie : ) but I screwed that calculation up all by myself. You are correct - 300 x 1.4 = 420. I'm going to edit my post.

ovenbird

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

04/22/2005 08:02:32 PM · #9

Yes, to me it always seemed a bit silly to buy a lens that I knew I would be using a teleconverter with almost all the time. If ultimate sharpness is what you are after you might want to consider the 400mm f/5.6L, it is an outstanding lens but no IS so will take some practice.

Tom

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

04/22/2005 08:05:09 PM · #10

Originally posted by coolhar:

Well I could say I got math lessons from Laurie : )

Wow, your brave mentioning Laurie and maths in the same sentance ;)

ellamay

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/22/2005 08:08:25 PM · #11

the 100-400 L IS is my primary lens, I shoot with it a LOT it is awesome, light enough to carry, awesome picture quality, sharpness and contrast. And the range can't be beat. There is very little that you CAN't do with this lens. If I could only have one lens, I would give up all my others in a heartbeat to keep this one.

worth every penny

04/22/2005 08:09:40 PM · #12

Originally posted by ovenbird:

Now we are talking used family cars, I honestly can't consider something like that. I may be daft but not silly lol (unless you know where I can get one for less than Â£1000??

ovenbird

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

04/22/2005 08:12:37 PM · #13

Here are a couple of shots I recently got with the 100-400 IS. They were taken at ISO 1600 (was early in the morning) but I think they are still pretty decent.

Tom

Message edited by author 2005-04-22 20:15:12.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

04/22/2005 08:12:57 PM · #14

*swinging back to the 100-400*
Thanks ellamay, would I be as good as you if I had one?

coolhar

04/22/2005 08:33:48 PM · #15

Deciding between a zoom and a prime for your frist telephoto is too personal a choice for me to offer any advice on. I have both now but the zoom came first.

I saw a pair of shooters working together yesterday that each had two D2H's and each had a 400 2.8. That's the biggest lens I've ever seen.

Very nice bird shots ovenbird.

Gauti

Canon EOS-7D

04/22/2005 10:30:33 PM · #16

Hi
I was in a similiar situation recently and opted for the 300F4L IS + 1.4 TC. I love that combo. I haven't tried the 100-400 lens so I don't have the comparison.
I use the 300mm mainly for birds, and it is a very nice and sharp lens. Not too heavy, actually quite light, and rather small also and travels easily.
Takes a while to get used to such a long fixed focal, but the optics are superb.
It focuses down to about 1.5m so you can take closeups of your own toes, handheld.

PhilipDyer