100-400 v 300mm F4 v 400mm F5.6

Gary Kinghorn

Gary Kinghorn

Messages
1,517
Edit My Images
No
Quite fancy a slight change in gear. Currently the longest zoom I have is a 70-200mm 2.8 II.

I spend a fair bit of time at Longleat Safari park and although the 70-200 is flipping amazing I sometimes think I could use a little extra length (oh err missus). In addition very infrequently I shoot either athletics (indoors and out) and motorsport. Both of these I shoot from media type positions. The question is what if anything should I buy?

I shoot with a 5d mkIII, 1d MkIII and will buy a 70d in the none too distant to give myself a crop sensor again.

300mm F4. I have admit I'm quite drawn to a new one of these. The F4 will suit the indoor athletics more than the other two and it's about the right length for shots of the finish line and the F4 would be useful. Doing a little research it's less likely to drag dust in than the 100-400. I like the focal length and could vary the length by moving it from body to body, if needed.

100-400mm. My father in law has the Sony variant of this and I've only seen him take it out of the house once. I'm sure it's a great lens, but the F5.6 worries me slightly. Ramping the ISO up on the 5D isn't too much of an issue, but not so great on the 1d and the 70d I have no idea. Having 400mm might be nice though.

400 F5.6. Probably overkill for my needs, but I know nothing about these, so I thought I would throw it in here.

So if it was you, what would you be doing?
 
Last edited:
A common dilema!

All 3 have their strengths and weaknesses, but for what you say I'd be tempted to go with the zoom for the flexibility, of the 300mm for the wider aperture. The thing to bare in mind though, are you sure the f4 will be fast enough for indoor athletics? If f4 is fast enough and 300mm long enough, then I'd be very tempted to put a 1.4x converter on your zoom

Depending upon your budget, maybe you could stretch to a used sigma 120-300mm f2.8 of the 300mm f2.8 prime, just another option to think of.
 
For me, from your 3 choices - I would (and did) go for the Canon 300F4 IS lens...

I went through a similar dilemma with these 3 lens and decided on the 300mm It takes a 1.4 TC very well - I've the new one and I can't notice any reduction in AF or IQ with the TC added (which gives you 420 F5.6 when you need that longer lens). I've not had any regrets buying the 300mm - I think the only reason I would change it if I was lucky enough to get a 300mm F2.8...

The Sigma 120-300 F2.8 really interests m, but I've not had the chance to try one out yet...
 
Funnily enough I have a MkII 1.4 convertor that I use from time to time. I was thinking it would sit well on the 300mm when required. Although now you mention it, it seems silly buying a 300mm F4 when I already have that with the 70-200 with my 1.4.

I did look at the 120-300 not a so long back and would like one, but from memory they are about £2k?

I don't do enough indoor athletics to justify a 300mm F2.8 and I mostly get by using the 70-200, or 135 F2 from a slightly different angle.

Perhaps I will hang fire for a while ..............
 
Or give the cheaper sigma 150-500 a whirl for a while. Probably not ideal, but they seem to be pretty well thought of in here and the worst case scenario would be I have to punt it on and lose a few quid. Hmmmmm


Obviously this would be no good for the indoor stuff, but that's fine.
 
I've got a 70-200 f2.8L IS II, a 300 f4L IS, a 2x MkIII converter and a 1.4x MkIII converter and they usually get used with the 70-200 and 2x on my 5DIII and the 300 and 1.4x on my 70D. If I don't need the full length then the 70-200 goes on the 70D and the 300 goes on the 5DIII. I get some great airplane, wildlife and BIF shots with them but I do also have access to a Sigma 150-500 OS which works really well with my 5DIII although not so great with my 70D (despite trying to MFA it a couple of times). Gary. if you are anywhere close to Lincoln you are welcome to come and have a try with my lenses to see which you like best.
 
Gary, I run a 70-200 f2.8 and added (last year) a 300 f4 and a 1.4 EX. The full 420mm on my 7D works well for birds, and the 300 was great on it's own at a trip to Whipsnade last year:


Cheetah02_med by Steve Jelly, on Flickr


Bear_01_med by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

I do like the fact that (by some standards) the 7D, 300 f4, and 1.4EX are a reasonable weight to carry around. I have used a 300 f2.8 before and I don't have a bag to get it in !! My ThinkTank Streetwalker will just about take that combination all assembled, and I can get the 70-200 f2.8 in the bag as well.

I have yet to try the 300 on the new 6D, but I think it will be excellent.

Hope that helps,

Steve
 
I have never used the longer Sigma lenses so couldn't comment. WIth your 5D III you should be able to shoot a quite high ISO which to some extent will negate the need for speed, and at fairly close quarters, the depth of field will be quite shallow too. However, just like my cars, I like my lenses fast too :D
 
gary996 said:
Im seriously looking a the Sigma 300 2.8.
You can pick one up for £1500 approx. I just like the idea of that 2.8.
Would more than likely get the matching Sigma converter
Click to expand...

The 120-300mm is a better lens at the long end...
 
Been watching a couple of reviews this evening on the 150-600 Tamron and the longer Sigma lenses.

I still lean towards a 300mm F4, but some of the other gear out there interests me too.

The trouble is I have a very little used 24-70 F2.8L which is sat on a shelf looking to be moved on. I'm not good at doing that, I tend to keep stuff rather than punt it on for some reason. But if it goes and I put some more to it then something around the £1k mark wouldn't be out of the question.

Speaking of the 120-300mm mpb had one for around £1300 not so long back. I had a good think about that one too. I bought the 70-200 II instead though.
 
Gary Kinghorn said:
Funnily enough I have a MkII 1.4 convertor that I use from time to time. I was thinking it would sit well on the 300mm when required. Although now you mention it, it seems silly buying a 300mm F4 when I already have that with the 70-200 with my 1.4..
Click to expand...

No, not silly at all, the 1.4TC gives you 98-280 (on the 70-200) and then upto 420 with the 300mm lens, so you've got a decent reach and also a very good additional lens...
 
Last edited:
Gary Kinghorn said:
Thanks for the comments chaps. I think when the time is right I will go for a 300mm F4. I think it will sit nicely with my other kit.
Click to expand...

I would definitely say yes, it will go very nicely and I don't think you'll regret it - I certainly haven't...
 
Decision made I'm going to buy myself a new 300 f4. Just need to shuffle a little cash around and get it bought.

Paramoz are doing them for £840 new. That will do for me I think.
 
gary996 said:
Is this the new sports lens or the older one?
I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 ii which I find takes my 2 mkiii very well. Just fancied a fast prime. Can't afford fast Canon. If I could I would buy the 200-400
Click to expand...

Even the first 120-300mm (Non OS) was a better lens than the sigma 300mm f2.8!
 
Gary Kinghorn said:
Decision made I'm going to buy myself a new 300 f4. Just need to shuffle a little cash around and get it bought.

Paramoz are doing them for £840 new. That will do for me I think.
Click to expand...

Excellent decision :D Just the waiting game now for it too arrive...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top